Thread: Marriage Equality

Supreme Court's landmark ruling legalizes gay marriage nationwide
Reuters
By Lawrence Hurley - 6 hrs ago

WASHINGTON, June 26 (Reuters) - The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the U.S. Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to marry, handing a historic triumph to the American gay rights movement.


The court ruled 5-4 that the Constitution's guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law mean that states cannot ban same-sex marriages. With the landmark ruling, gay marriage becomes legal in all 50 states.

Immediately after the decision, same-sex couples in many of states where gay marriage had been banned headed to county clerks' offices for marriage licenses as state officials issued statements saying they would respect the ruling.

President Barack Obama, appearing in the White House Rose Garden, hailed the ruling as a milestone in American justice that arrived "like a thunderbolt."


"This ruling is a victory for America," said Obama, the first sitting president to support gay marriage. "This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts. When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing on behalf of the court, said the hope of gay people intending to marry "is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

Kennedy, a conservative who often casts the deciding vote in close cases, was joined in the majority by the court's four liberal justices.

Kennedy, appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1988, has now authored all four of the court's major gay rights rulings, with the first coming in 1996. As with his 2013 opinion when the court struck down a federal law that denied benefits to same-sex couples, Kennedy stressed the dignity of marriage.

"Without the recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser," Kennedy wrote.

In a blistering dissenting opinion, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision shows the court is a "threat to American democracy." The ruling "says that my ruler and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia added.


Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts read a summary of his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so in his 10 years on the court. Roberts said although there are strong policy arguments in same-sex marriage, it was not the court's role to force states to change their marriage laws.

"Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law," Roberts wrote.

The dissenters raised concerns about the impact of the case on people opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

Although the ruling only affects state laws and religious institutions can still choose whether to marry same-sex couples, Roberts predicted future legal conflicts.

"Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage," Roberts said. Roberts gave as an example a religious college that provides married student housing only to opposite-sex couples.

The ruling is the Supreme Court's most important expansion of marriage rights in the United States since its landmark 1967 ruling in the case Loving v. Virginia that struck down state laws barring interracial marriages.

There were 13 state bans in place, while another state, Alabama, had contested a court ruling that lifted the ban there.

The ruling is the latest milestone in the gay rights movement in recent years. In 2010, Obama signed a law allowing gays to serve openly in the U.S. military. In 2013, the high court ruled unconstitutional a 1996 U.S. law that declared for the purposes of federal benefits marriage was defined as between one man and one woman.

Reaction came swiftly. James Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the case, told a cheering crowd outside the Supreme Court, "Today's ruling from the Supreme Court affirms what millions across this country already know to be true in our hearts - our love is equal, that the four words etched onto the front of the Supreme Court - equal justice under law - apply to us, too."

Hundreds of gay rights supporters celebrated outside the courthouse with whoops and cries of "U-S-A!" and "Love is love" as the decision came down.

'JUDICIAL TYRANNY'

Conservatives denounced the ruling. Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said, "This flawed, failed decision is an out-of-control act of unconstitutional judicial tyranny." Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum lamented that five "unelected judges redefined the foundational unit of society."

Opponents say same-sex marriage legality should be decided by states, not judges. Some opponents argue it is an affront to traditional marriage between a man and a woman and that the Bible condemns homosexuality.

Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, wrote on Twitter she was "proud to celebrate a historic victory for marriage equality."


The decision follows rapid changes in attitudes and policies toward gay marriage in America. It was not until 2003 that the Supreme Court threw out state laws banning gay sex. And it was not until 2004 that the Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. Gay marriage has gained increasing acceptance in opinion polls in recent years, particularly among younger Americans.

Gay marriage also is gaining acceptance in other Western countries. Last month in Ireland, voters backed same-sex marriage by a landslide in a referendum that marked a dramatic social shift in the traditionally Roman Catholic country.

Ireland followed several Western European countries including Britain, France and Spain in allowing gay marriage, which is also legal in South Africa, Brazil and Canada. But homosexuality remains taboo and often illegal in many parts of Africa and Asia.

The Supreme Court's ruling came in a consolidated case pulling together challenges filed by same-sex couples to gay marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

The Obama administration argued on the side of the same-sex marriage advocates.

The legal repercussions for same-sex couples are broad, affecting not just their right to marry but also their right to be recognized as a spouse or parent on birth and death certificates and other legal papers.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sup...id=ansnewsap11



See also Supreme Court & Marriage

Scalia: Gay marriage decision shows court is America's 'ruler'
The Hill - Ben Kamisar - 6 hrs ago

Justice Antonin Scalia is chastising the Supreme Court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage on Friday as an affront to the principle of democratic rule.

Scalia argues in his opinion that the court is increasingly creating policy rather than serving as a neutral arbiter.

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” he writes.

“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

Scalia blasts the majority opinion as “couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic.”

“The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie,” he writes in a footnote needling the majority for its bombastic language.

It’s the second day in a row that Scalia has blasted the majority’s opinion. On Thursday, he accused the court of creating “SCOTUScare” with a ruling that said the federal government could provide ObamaCare subsidies to consumers on a federal exchange.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that decision and was at the end of Scalia’s criticism, but on Friday they were on the same side.

Scalia wrote his own dissent even though he wrote that he agrees with everything that Roberts wrote in his own dissenting opinion, in order to “call attention to this court’s threat to American democracy.”

Scalia admits that the societal outcome of the decision isn’t particularly important to him.

“The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can afford them favorable civil consequences,” he writes.

But he wrote that he views the opinion as an overreach by the court, and chides the justices as “hardly a cross-section of America.”

He notes that all the justices graduated from Harvard or Yale Law School, eight grew up on the coasts, and that not one is an evangelical Christian or a Protestant, religions that make up significant chunks of the American population.

“To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation,” he writes.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...ocid=ansHill11

"I'm just getting back from vacation. I made it home just in time to watch on TV as the Supreme Court unilaterally overruled the will of the people, the authority of the legislature, and thousands of years of human civilization to decree that gay marriage must be legalized across the land.

Of course I'm not surprised by this turn of events, but it's no less despicable, infuriating, and bewildering. Especially after reading a good portion of the majority opinion, which appears to have been written by a teenage gay activist, not a Justice of the highest court in the land.

The liberal judges justify this dictatorial act by saying that gay people get lonely if they can't marry, and that everyone needs the "intimacy and spirituality" marriage affords. And these are, allegedly, constitutional interpretations. Oh, did you miss the part in the Bill of Rights where it describes an American's right to intimacy and romance? Yeah, I did too. Mostly because it doesn't exist. But, then, few care what the law actually says anymore.

In any case, the good news, if there can be any, is that the Supreme Court did not actually redefine marriage. It can't. It tried, but it can't. Marriage is, has been, and always will be only one particular thing: the union between a man and a woman.

Some will say that the actual definition of marriage doesn't matter anymore, now that our country has adopted the "gay marriage" perversity wholesale. But I think it still matters. The truth still matters, and always will."
~Matt Walsh

http://www.theblaze.com/contribution...me-court-says/

To be honest, I am of two minds on the issue. The Libetarian in me is horrified that we would withhold from anyone the right to enter into a legal and binding contract based on gender, orientation, creed, race, or other details. If Adam and Eve can sign a contract, why not Adam and Steve; If Anthony and Theresa, why not Toni and Terri ?

On the other hand... it was turned over to the individual states to place it before a vote of the citezens living there, to determine whether or not they choose to recognize same sex marriages. When the voters did not choose "correctly", then a minority group took the matter before a court for "discrimination" and a small group - or in some cases a single person - could overturn the "Will of the People".

It is not the place of the SCOTUS to create law, that belongs to the voters and to the Legistlature.

Obama: Ditch Religious Convictions About Same-Sex Marriage Already
Rachel Stoltzfoos - 1:01 PM 06/26/2015

President Barack Obama urged supporters of same-sex marriage Friday to “help” people to overcome their religious convictions, so they are no longer held back from a progressive American view of equality.

“I know that Americans of goodwill continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue,” he said in a speech following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling to Constitutionally recognize same-sex marriage. He initially espoused respect for those who disagree with the ruling.

“Opposition in some cases has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs,” he said. “All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact. Recognize different viewpoints. Revere our deep commitment to religious freedom.”

“But today should also give us hope that on the many issues with which we grapple often painfully real change is possible, he continued, abruptly switching gears, clearly implying that those who disagree must come around to the more righteous, more American, and more equal view of marriage
“Shifts in hearts and minds is possible,” he said. “And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them. Because for all our differences, we are one people — stronger together than we could ever be alone.”

“That’s always been our story. We are big and vast, and diverse. A nation of people with different backgrounds and beliefs, with different experiences and stories, but bound by our shared ideal that no matter who you are, or what you look like, how you started off, or how and who you love — America’s a place where you can write your own destiny.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/ob...#ixzz3eDHcrN4u

comments

Wow! asking people to overcome their religious beliefs - is this man really the Devil or what. How can you ask someone to discard their religious beliefs and still believe in the American Constitution and Freedom of Religion. This is the most idiotic statement i have ever heard a President make - No - actually it's probably par for King Obama. " Get Over your Religious beliefs?" Let that sink in for a few minutes!

...

Ten years ago I laughed at conspiracy theories. Today most conspiracy theories I ridiculed are reality

..

"And those who have come so far on their journey to equality have a responsibility to reach back and help others join them."

Translation: help others give up their convictions.]

Suggesting that people give up their convictions, not people -- religious people, the right.. Those on the left with no principles who like their lack of principles can keep their lack of principles. Convictions are just that -- convictions. If you give them up, they are not convictions now are they? No, conviction is "in our DNA." There's no giving up what is right.

..

People better pay more attention to this statement and not make the mistake made when they ignored Obama's declaration that he would "fundamentally transform the U.S."

This wannabe dictator is telling Americans they will no longer have the right to their religious beliefs. Ignore this warning at your own peril.

...

I really want to know how he reconciles this ruling with his support for the Mus!im Brotherhood and what they think about gay people.

Texas Governor Issues Directive on Religious Liberty

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/...gious-liberty/

Polygamy Attorney On Gay Marriage Decision: SCOTUS Opinion ‘Resonates With Our Arguments’
Kerry Picket - 3:21 PM 06/26/2015

Could Friday’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country make polygamous marriage a legal reality nationwide in the near future?

Jonathan Turley, the attorney who won the polygamy marriage case in Utah for Kody Brown and his four “Sister Wives” thinks the majority opinion “resonates” with the arguments he made to the Utah Supreme Court to decriminalize polygamous consensual relationships.

“The cases are actually different in that the Brown case is about the criminalization while today’s case was about recognition. We have not argued for recognition of plural marriages. Indeed, the Browns have never asked for multiple marriage licenses,” Turley said.

“Like many plural families, they have one state license for one marriage but chose to live as a plural family with “spiritual marriages.” In that sense, our case is more like Lawrence v. Texas that was handed down ten years ago.”

Turley explained, “Having said that, much of the language of the majority clearly resonates with our arguments against the criminalization of private consensual relations. It also speaks to the stigma that is borne by families in being excluded in society. That is an even greater danger when your entire family is declared a criminal enterprise merely because the parents chose to cohabitate as a plural family.”

He added, “The important thing though is to recognize that the question in our case is closer to the issue resolved by the Supreme Court ten years ago for gay couples in striking down the criminalization of homosexual relationships.”

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups ruled in August of 2014 Utah’s ban on polygamy violated the First and 14th Amendments. Similarly, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion that legalized same-sex marriage also pointed to the 14th Amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote for the majority, stated, “The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.”

Academic Frederick deBoer writes in Politico Magazine how the Supreme Court’s decision opens the doors for legal polygamous marriages.




“The marriage equality movement has been both the best and worst thing that could happen for legally sanctioned polygamy. The best, because that movement has required a sustained and effective assault on ‘traditional marriage’ arguments that reflected no particular point of view other than that marriage should stay the same because it’s always been the same.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/po...#ixzz3eDMonSDF

This was a great response on Facebook right after the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states.



Roberts zeroes in on where the next big game is. You & I both know this is coming.



Within a few years tax exempt status will be stripped from churches.
>>>> Charitable giving will dip.
>>> More govt will move in to fill in the gap.


I can't wait to force the local mosque to marry gay couples...

No matter what your belief about traditional and same sex marriage is... This ruling should infuriate you.

The Supreme Court has usurped the state's rights guaranteed in the United States Constitution.

That very constitution men and women gave their lives to write and protect and the one they were sworn to uphold!


On September 18, 2004, by 78% to 22%, the voters of Louisiana approved a state constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriages and civil unions. The measure banned any other legal status "identical or substantially similar to that of marriage" which includes domestic partnerships.

Now if the state wants to vote again and the results are different... s be it.

The Supreme Court's role is to uphold and interpret the laws, not make them!!!

..

The flag was a distraction, we got played! While we the people were fighting about a flag, Congress was busy passing a law that gave Obama more power with trade (bypassing Congress) part of a Pacific Trade Act.

Also the supreme court set precedent to pass a law which affected the entire country at once, this time it happened to be hot topic such as gay marriage. People can stick their hand in the sand and go about their merry way bc either they can't understand what was just done and the potential impact it could have on your life in the near future.

...

Unlike many I will not be celebrating the SCOTUS ruling on obamacare and homosexual marriage.

I will not be putting up rainbow flags on my profile nor dancing in the streets nor shouting how wonderful this ruling is. Obama has said Christians need to get over their objection to homosexual marriage. Hillary says the same about abortion. We have removed God from our schools and now from our nation. We light up the White House with gay pride colors. We hoist gay pride flags with the American flag and we Insist that the confederate flag be taken down and not sold nor flown or displayed.

No I will not be celebrating , I will be praying and lamenting the downfall and willfull destruction of my beloved country. What some call progressive I call abomination and affront to God. If you disagree and are offended by my position please unfriend me immediately because I don't need the drama and grief.

...

Debate over Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage should remain respectful
There is no getting around that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage annuls the views of Louisiana voters

In America, from the beginning, there has been the tension between the democratic process and the courts’ role in protecting the constitutional rights that are “inalienable,” in the words of the Declaration of Independence. The rule of the majority was at once celebrated and feared by the Founding Fathers of this country.

The gay marriage ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is a historic decision that extends what has been for millennia the province of straight couples to those of gay and lesbian Americans. It also provokes the perennial debate about the constitutional rights of citizens and the will of the majority.

There is no getting around the fact that this decision, in line with the majority of court decisions on this controversy, annuls the democratically expressed view of the voters in many states, including Louisiana.

An old joke is that the courts follow the election returns; in this case, it’s a Supreme Court that is following a dramatic shift in the court of public opinion. Louisiana voters overwhelmingly passed a state ban on gay marriage in 2004. The decade since has seen a remarkable shift away from the old prejudices against gays and lesbians, but any gay rights initiatives have still been a tough sell politically in the state outside New Orleans. Only Shreveport has a new and recent gay rights initiative in its ordinances.

If there can be a legitimate regret that the Supreme Court did not allow public opinion to mature, there is little question that public acceptance of gay and lesbian couples has increased and earlier court decisions — involving tax and property rights of gay partners — paved the legal path for Friday’s decision. This is not a decision that came out of thin air.

All that said, we hope that this decision does not provoke an overreaction.

No, courts aren’t ordering churches with religiously based objections to perform gay marriage. In fact, the process of granting marriage licenses probably will take a while in Louisiana.

We hope there is no pointless political posturing against what is now the law of the land. Local officials have a duty to provide an orderly process for gay couples to marry legally in Louisiana.

Gov. Bobby Jindal has crusaded against gay marriage, and his opposition is not unexpected. “This decision will pave the way for an all-out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision,” his campaign said. “This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty.”

We consider this a gross overreaction, as religious freedom seems to us unimpaired in this country.

The governor made himself seem ridiculous by suggesting that we can do without a Supreme Court.

Jindal’s statements are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. That’s another right that does not depend on the will of the majority to enjoy protection of the courts of the United States.

The controversy is legitimate, but it should not devolve into bitterness. We live in a richly diverse state. Our history should compel us to focus on how we live together amicably even amid our many differences.

http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/...-a-ruling-over

In the words of Chief Justice Roberts, celebrate all you want, but know this: "Do not celebrate the constitution. It had nothing to do with it." This he spoke in his dissent opinion.

...

We also live in a republic, not a democracy. Nowhere in the Constitution is "the will of the majority" even mentioned, let alone enshrined. The Bill of Rights makes it quite clear that rights are not subject to the whims of the majority. We, as a society, are merely moving ever closer to recognizing the vision of the Founders.

..

The Supreme Court did not allow public opinion to mature on this issue because it did not have that luxury. There were multiple conflicting Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rulings that needed to be resolved. The voters of Louisiana did approve a State Constitutional Amendment in 2004 but according to the Secretary of State's Office only 796,975 voters cast ballots in that election and 619,908 votes were cast in favor of the Amendment, so it passed, but in the first primary election for Governor in 2007, a total of 1,297,840 votes were cast, Bobby Jindal's total was 699.275 in that election, so Jindal actually out polled the Marriage Amendment. The Amendment did pass by an overwhelming majority but the numbers were not much to brag about. Abolition of slavery, abolition of anti-abortion laws, and desegregation were not the majority will in Louisiana. There comes a time for these issues to be settled so we (collectively) can move on to other things. I might add that only 1,023.163 votes were cast in the Governor's election in 2011, Jindal received 673,239 votes, fewer than his total in 2007, but still more than were cast for the Marriage Amendment. These numbers may not mean much but they do show that an overwhelming percentage of the people of Louisiana are not opposed to same sex marriage most people just do not care. Many of us have friends and/or relatives who may be affected and tend to be in favor of same sex marriagee for their quality of life.

Debate over Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage should remain respectful
There is no getting around that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage annuls the views of Louisiana voters

In America, from the beginning, there has been the tension between the democratic process and the courts’ role in protecting the constitutional rights that are “inalienable,” in the words of the Declaration of Independence. The rule of the majority was at once celebrated and feared by the Founding Fathers of this country.

The gay marriage ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is a historic decision that extends what has been for millennia the province of straight couples to those of gay and lesbian Americans. It also provokes the perennial debate about the constitutional rights of citizens and the will of the majority.

There is no getting around the fact that this decision, in line with the majority of court decisions on this controversy, annuls the democratically expressed view of the voters in many states, including Louisiana.

An old joke is that the courts follow the election returns; in this case, it’s a Supreme Court that is following a dramatic shift in the court of public opinion. Louisiana voters overwhelmingly passed a state ban on gay marriage in 2004. The decade since has seen a remarkable shift away from the old prejudices against gays and lesbians, but any gay rights initiatives have still been a tough sell politically in the state outside New Orleans. Only Shreveport has a new and recent gay rights initiative in its ordinances.

If there can be a legitimate regret that the Supreme Court did not allow public opinion to mature, there is little question that public acceptance of gay and lesbian couples has increased and earlier court decisions — involving tax and property rights of gay partners — paved the legal path for Friday’s decision. This is not a decision that came out of thin air.

All that said, we hope that this decision does not provoke an overreaction.

No, courts aren’t ordering churches with religiously based objections to perform gay marriage. In fact, the process of granting marriage licenses probably will take a while in Louisiana.

We hope there is no pointless political posturing against what is now the law of the land. Local officials have a duty to provide an orderly process for gay couples to marry legally in Louisiana.

Gov. Bobby Jindal has crusaded against gay marriage, and his opposition is not unexpected. “This decision will pave the way for an all-out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision,” his campaign said. “This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty.”

We consider this a gross overreaction, as religious freedom seems to us unimpaired in this country.

The governor made himself seem ridiculous by suggesting that we can do without a Supreme Court.

Jindal’s statements are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. That’s another right that does not depend on the will of the majority to enjoy protection of the courts of the United States.

The controversy is legitimate, but it should not devolve into bitterness. We live in a richly diverse state. Our history should compel us to focus on how we live together amicably even amid our many differences.

http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/...-a-ruling-over

In the words of Chief Justice Roberts, celebrate all you want, but know this: "Do not celebrate the constitution. It had nothing to do with it." This he spoke in his dissent opinion.

...

We also live in a republic, not a democracy. Nowhere in the Constitution is "the will of the majority" even mentioned, let alone enshrined. The Bill of Rights makes it quite clear that rights are not subject to the whims of the majority. We, as a society, are merely moving ever closer to recognizing the vision of the Founders.

..

The Supreme Court did not allow public opinion to mature on this issue because it did not have that luxury. There were multiple conflicting Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rulings that needed to be resolved. The voters of Louisiana did approve a State Constitutional Amendment in 2004 but according to the Secretary of State's Office only 796,975 voters cast ballots in that election and 619,908 votes were cast in favor of the Amendment, so it passed, but in the first primary election for Governor in 2007, a total of 1,297,840 votes were cast, Bobby Jindal's total was 699.275 in that election, so Jindal actually out polled the Marriage Amendment. The Amendment did pass by an overwhelming majority but the numbers were not much to brag about. Abolition of slavery, abolition of anti-abortion laws, and desegregation were not the majority will in Louisiana. There comes a time for these issues to be settled so we (collectively) can move on to other things. I might add that only 1,023.163 votes were cast in the Governor's election in 2011, Jindal received 673,239 votes, fewer than his total in 2007, but still more than were cast for the Marriage Amendment. These numbers may not mean much but they do show that an overwhelming percentage of the people of Louisiana are not opposed to same sex marriage most people just do not care. Many of us have friends and/or relatives who may be affected and tend to be in favor of same sex marriagee for their quality of life.

YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE

Written by Allen West on June 27, 2015

Yesterday, as you know, five justices on the SCOTUS redefined what marriage is in America and also found the time to violate the concept of federalism. They decided that an individual’s behavioral choice was grounds to create a new “right” in the U.S. Constitution. Now of course there are those of you who are somewhat despondent, but just know that in every storm there is a rainbow — quite sure y’all get my tongue-in-cheek comment. Yep, since now the SCOTUS has determined it can bequeath a right to marriage across all 50 states, there is an interesting point to be made.

As reported by BearingArms.com, “If you’re following any of the various media outlets this morning, you’re probably aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has just extended gay marriage to all 50 states. The Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry nationwide, in a historic decision that invalidates gay marriage bans in more than a dozen states. Gay and lesbian couples already can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court’s ruling on Friday means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. The outcome is the culmination of two decades of Supreme Court litigation over marriage, and gay rights generally.”






The Court used Section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to justify its argument, which reads: Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now here is the kicker, as the writer articulately brings to light: “By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states. My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday. Today they must.

Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.“

Yes folks, there is a standing right called the Second Amendment, which grants the right to keep and bear arms, and that specifically granted right shall not be infringed. So, the SCOTUS does not need to have a court case and prolonged legal, judicial activism — that right exists.

So, since I have moved from Florida to Texas, my concealed weapons permit is not only transferrable here, but all across the country, in all fifty states — or fifty-seven if you are President Obama. Yeehaw! Thanks to the LGBT community for making it very clear, my constitutionally declared right MUST be recognized in every state. Not only is it my right to keep and bear my arms (weapons) but that personal choice is central to my individual dignity and autonomy — the protection of the unalienable rights granted to me by the Creator, the first of which is life. Hot doggone, I just cannot wait to hear the liberal progressive socialist anti-gun argument against this premise — which is now established!

Perhaps I should probably remind folks of some of the quotes of the Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment:

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” — Benjamin Franklin

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — George Mason

“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” — Richard Henry Lee

“[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” — Thomas Jefferson

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies.” — George Washington

“An armed person is a citizen, and unarmed person is a subject” — Allen B. West…I know, I’m just a regular fella, but just thought I’d sneak this one in.

Now, I suppose someone will say the words of Franklin, Mason, Lee, Jefferson, and Washington are invalid because of some lame excuse like — “ya know they owned slaves.” But the point is simple and easy to comprehend. If the SCOTUS could create a right that is truly non-existent in the Constitution using the 14th Amendment, then it seems reasonable and logical to use the same Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and equal protection to extend the concealed carry right to all 50 states.

So here is the call to action: since we are coming up on our 239th Independence Day celebration, let’s all call the White House and inform them that we CCL owners are going to be traveling for the Independence Day holiday and we plan on carrying our weapons wherever the heck we please. And if anyone decides to stop an American citizen and challenge his or her Second Amendment right, then let’s discuss the violation of federalism by the SCOTUS mandating same-sex marriage. As a matter of fact, we expect the ATF to start issuing NATIONAL CCL cards to all of us who are current holders of valid CCLs — heck, we know the DHS is planning on printing ID cards for illegal immigrants.

Therefore, celebrate your 4th of July knowing that the SCOTUS just solidified our right to keep and bear arms — and that no state has the “right” to infringe upon our Second Amendment right. If the violation of federalism works ok for LGBTs — then it works well for gun owners!

Yeehaw!

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeehaw...erals-explode/