Obergefell v. Hodges is a classic case of judicial tyranny, its date will live in infamy

[johnwk]

For those who are dedicated supporters and defenders of the miracle our forefathers created (the Constitution of the United States of America), the MAJORITY’S OPINION in Obergefell v. Hodges, handed down June 26, 2015, like a number of previous “precedent” setting opinions, will long be remember as another significant and major attack on the fundamental rules used to preserve and protect that Constitution.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was absolutely correct when he emphatically stated a “. . . precedent should be of our legal tradition, and our country and our laws, and be based on something – not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.” SOURCE

With respect to fundamental rules used to determine the true and actual meaning of our Constitution, as it was understood by those who framed it and the States and people therein when ratifying it, the majority’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges casts such rules aside and substituted its own sexual oriented feels and predilections for the rule of law and reversed the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which appropriately upheld, on November 6, 2014, Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage

Nowhere in the majority opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges, is there a shred of evidence confirming that by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection or due process clause, or the documented legislative intent under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to by the States when ratifying the amendment, was Kentucky‘s decision to not issue same-sex marriage licenses in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Kennedy in authoring the opinion simply went on and on, page after page, with irrelevant platitudes and historical notations having nothing to do with the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment in order to “. . . discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it." See, HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Unlike Israel’s “Basic Law” which states “There shall be no violation of rights under its Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required “, which in effect makes rights and limited powers granted meaningless, the Constitution of the United States contains no grant of such omnipotent authority to our federal government, and that includes an un-elected majority sitting on our Supreme Court.

In essence, a majority on our Supreme Court set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to, while Article V is the only lawful way to alter our Constitution, and it requires consent of the States and people therein as outlined therein.

Have three-fourths of the States and people therein agreed to cast aside the traditional meaning of marriage, which dates back 4,000 years, and forbid the States to issue marriage licenses based upon the applicant’s sex?

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[spudea]

It's pretty clear equal protection of the law applies. If the government is involved in issuing marriage licenses, they must do so indiscriminately. The real issue is the government shouldn't be involved, but opponents don't want to get into that because there is a lot the government shouldn't be involved in.

 

[johnwk]

It's pretty clear equal protection of the law applies. If the government is involved in issuing marriage licenses, they must do so indiscriminately. The real issue is the government shouldn't be involved, but opponents don't want to get into that because there is a lot the government shouldn't be involved in.

I appreciate your opinion concerning the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, but it is not supported by the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, nor the documented legislative intent for which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.

The text of the Fourteenth Amendment states: "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 [singular] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, according to the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, no “person” [singular] is denied the equal protection under Kentucky's marriage law as is required by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. Every person is treated EQUAL.

Now, as to the legislative intent of the Fourteen Amendment, as summarized by one of its supporters during its framing by the 39th Congress:


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293


As I pointed out, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly held that Kentucky was under no constitutional obligation to license or recognize same-sex marriages, effectively upholding Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment:

“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Nowhere in the majority opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges, is there a shred of evidence confirming that by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection or due process clause, or the documented legislative intent under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to by the States when ratifying the amendment, was Kentucky‘s decision to not issue same-sex marriage licenses in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Invisible Man]

It's pretty clear equal protection of the law applies. If the government is involved in issuing marriage licenses, they must do so indiscriminately. The real issue is the government shouldn't be involved, but opponents don't want to get into that because there is a lot the government shouldn't be involved in.

If men and women both had equal rights to get marriage licenses to be married to members of the opposite sex, then that is equal protection under the law.

 

[spudea]

If men and women both had equal rights to get marriage licenses to be married to members of the opposite sex, then that is equal protection under the law.

That's like saying the law could be only issue marriage licenses to a white couple and not to a black/white couple. You create an irrelevant distinction based on prejudice and call it equal protection of the law. No that's not how equal protection works. This was part of the Hodges case, in order to deny a same-sex marriage license, the state had to prove they had a good reason treat same-sex couples differently, the state failed to provide a legitimate reason.

 

[Invisible Man]

That's like saying the law could be only issue marriage licenses to a white couple and not to a black/white couple. You create an irrelevant distinction based on prejudice and call it equal protection of the law. No that's not how equal protection works. This was part of the Hodges case, in order to deny a same-sex marriage license, the state had to prove they had a good reason treat same-sex couples differently, the state failed to provide a legitimate reason.

What irrelevant distinction did I make?

 

[johnwk]

What irrelevant distinction did I make?

Actually, you were spot on and the time line from the Fourteenth Amendment forward proves you are correct!


Let us look at the associated historical time line for the truth and facts.

On July 9th, 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment is adopted, the first Section reading as follows:

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.

Note that there is no language concerning any restriction based upon “sex”.

In 1870, two years later, the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Note once again there continues to be no restrictive referenced in our Constitution with respect to “sex”.

Fifty years later, on August 18th, 1920, the American People decide to provide restrictive language into our Constitution concerning “sex” by their adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment. But the amendment is narrowly worded and limits the protection against “sex” discriminations as follows:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

At this very time there is an active movement in the United States to adopt an “Equal Rights Amendment” and it persists for decades. The proposed amendment is intentionally designed to prohibit distinctions based upon “sex” as follows:

Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.

In the 1970s, Congress sets a seven year deadline for the ratification of the ERA which was later extended by three years to 1982. But despite efforts to secure ratification of the amendment, a sufficient number of States wisely refuse to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment. Some of the reasons for its rejection were, it would lead to women being drafted into the military, unisex bathrooms, and even legalization of homosexual marriages.

So, having reviewed the historical evidence, it become obvious a majority on our Supreme Court falsely asserted the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right to same-sex marriages.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[johnwk]

Why the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges needs to be revisited and overturned.

Obergefell v. Hodges reversed the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which appropriately upheld, on November 6, 2014 Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Some of the glaring problems with the majority opinion in Obergefell are:

• The opinion relies upon irrelevant platitudes and historical notations to arrive at its conclusions, rather than the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed the Fourteenth Amendment to accomplish specific and limited objectives, which the majority opinion falsely asserts have been violated.

• While the majority opinion relies upon irrelevant platitudes and historical notations to arrive at its conclusion, it blatantly ignores the historical definition of marriage within Western culture, which dates back to the 6th and 9th centuries as being a union between one man and one woman. Hence, the majority opinion contradicts its own method used to arrive at its conclusion.

• The majority opinion knowingly flaunts and subjugates Article V of the Constitution requiring consent of the governed, which is the only lawful and democratic way, within the terms of our Constitution, to accommodate and acknowledge changing times.

• The majority’s opinion blatantly ignores and renders meaningless the Tenth Amendment's powers reserved to the States and people therein.

• The majority opinion blatantly assumed a legislative authority not granted by the terms and conditions set forth in the Constitution. In essence, a majority on our Supreme Court set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to.

A precedent setting case, as Justice Thomas correctly points out, “. . . should be respectful of our legal tradition, and our country and our laws, and be based on something – not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with . . . ” which is exactly what the majority opinion Justices did when agreeing with Justice Kennedy who authored the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges.