Why the Gay Marriage Ruling Should Not be Accepted by the States

Like it, or not, gay marriage is not legal.

A lot of people – particularly liberals – look at the Constitution, and count that as reading it.  Others look at it, but don’t bother looking into the backgrounds and meanings behind that legislation, and so they believe they can interpret it any way they see fit.  This is why you have people claiming the 14th Amendment is, somehow, justification to force gay marriage on the rest of the country.

Not even close.

Let’s look at the 14th Amendment:


“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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

This should be pretty plain. Nowhere in that does it mention anything about any kind of marriage, so to try using this Amendment as a basis for justifying gay marriage is wrong.  Furthermore, this is a RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENT.   You remember the Reconstruction Period, don’t you?  Back when Democrats were butt-hurt about losing the Republicans in a war they started, and decided to take their losership out on Blacks.  Reconstruction is something leftists democrats fought against, resulting in the formation of the domestic terrorist organization called the Ku Klux Klan.  This was an amendment written and intended to insure the rights of BLACKS.  You know, those people you liberals wanted so bad to deport, even though they were born in the US, even as today you fight tooth and nail to keep people that immigrated here illegally on American soil.

“The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.”

If you want gay marriage, the “Supreme” Court shouldn’t even be involved. They have ZERO Constitutional authority to even hear such a case.  What’s the “Supreme” Court supposed to hear cases regarding?  These specific things:

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”

Again, no mention of marriage, of any kind, was there?  It’s funny how the left believes the “Supreme” Court (which, by the way, doesn’t have much power over the States, and isn’t considered the final authority on anything, considering the Constitution didn’t enumerate that power to them) is right on everything, but this isn’t anything new.  Liberals were ecstatic when the “Supreme” Court issued their rulings on things like the Fugitive Slave Act, Segregation and other such things they didn’t have the authority to hear, back then.  It’s all fine and good, until they make a verdict liberals DON’T like, then there’s something wrong with them.  It doesn’t take a genius (unless you’re a liberal) to figure out that if you want gay marriage, you don’t look to the US Constitution to do the work for you.  There are NO LAWS in the Constitution regarding this, and if you see any, it’s because you manufactured them.  If that is what you want, then you’re going to have to make law, and not at the federal level.  The federal government has no authority over this, whatsoever.  This is a job for the People and the States.  Liberals will want emotional arguments, but they have no substance.  They can cry about “equality”, but that didn’t seem to matter to them, back when they were pushing segregation, miscegenation, Jim Crow, the Black Codes, etc.  Not until they dealt with people exhibiting voluntary sexual behavior that they could milk for votes, did liberals care about this.  Not until they figured out how to dupe stupid Blacks into voting democrat did they care about programs like Welfare.

great seal of virus x

~ by Virus-X REPUBLIC COMMANDO on June 26, 2015.

5 Responses to “Why the Gay Marriage Ruling Should Not be Accepted by the States”

  1. I agree with your position wholeheartedly, but my question is, “Although the Supreme Court ruling is not based on the Constitution, what can be done about it?”

    I am not a lawyer, but I do know the ruling is based on political expedience towards a group’s immoral behavior and political clout. The Court has taken a liberal position of “unless expressly prohibited, this Court will have the final say in everything presented to it.” In other words, because the Constitution does NOT forbid the SCOTUS from ruling on marriage, the Court believes the Framers have given it tacit approval to do so.

    Marriage is a states’ rights issue as well as a religious issue. If allowed to stand, we will no longer live under a federal republic, but rather an oligarchy ruled by nine oppressors in black robes. If Congress doesn’t reign in the tyranny, then maybe this should be an issue presented at an Article V Constitutional convention?

  2. Well, some of the States are doing what they should be doing about this, which is IGNORING THE RULING. Tennessee and – I believe – Alabama or Georgia are doing just that. What the “Supreme” Court is refusing to see is their own limitations. The Constitution clearly states what the limits of their authority are, but they ignore those limits, for the sake of becoming national judicial activists with their little bully pulpits. The Constitution does forbid the “Supreme” Court from even HEARING such a case, because it specifically states what they can hear, and back in the 10th Amendment to that same document, it states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. When the Constitution is silent on a subject, it’s indicative of that subject not being an enumerated power of whatever federal body is addressed. The Constitution is completely silent on this issue, and that says that NO branch of the federalized government has any authority to make any rulings on this matter, just as, really, they don’t even have any power to address rulings regarding ANY form of marriage, whatsoever, straight, gay or what have you.

    Congress has already shown itself to be complicit with both the “Supreme” Court, and the Executive, meaning it’s up to the States to be the firewall between the People and government overreach. With Michigan throwing in, several weeks ago, there’s nothing stopping them [the States] from finally holding the Convention of States [Article 5], amending the Constitution, and putting more stringent limitations on all branches of the federal government. In fact, when I see my senator, tonight, I’m going to ask him about that very thing. However, we all have to be in contact with our states representatives and senators, to insure what we want represented in restraining what Mark Levin calls the Federal Leviathan is accurately conveyed and executed.

  3. Thank you for your reply and please accept my apologies for not getting back sooner.

    I am of the mindset the Supreme Court needs to be put on a short leash and its justices subjected to term limits. Congress can make a law putting many contemporary issues and others out of the purview of those tyrants in black robes such as marriage, abortion, the death penalty, etc. if they had the political courage and inspiration to do so.

    Another way to further restrain the high court is to repeal the 17th Amendment and return it to representing the several states. I doubt the state legislatures and governors would support some of the idiotic members of the bench we have now such as Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer. There wouldn’t need to be filibusters to stop the nomination of anyone to the bench, but in the future there won’t be a rubber stamp approval either with little or no regard to qualifications or experience. I firmly believe the quality of the justices and their rulings would better reflect the people’s wishes to remain a constitutional federal republic with the repeal of the 17th.

    While I applaud the actions of several states to ignore the Supreme Court ruling on gay “marriage”, I doubt if our Framers had intended the states to have the power to pick and choose which rulings they cared to abide by. IMHO, it should have never gotten that far in the first place. Of course, those Framers never envisioned a bunch of all-knowing, most benevolent Progressives trumping the Constitution they wrote to the chagrin of all.

    Thanks again and have an AWESOME day! 🙂

  4. No big deal, I was caught up in my week, just like I’m sure you get.

    The Supreme Court has a short leash, which is the Constitution. Listening to experts on the Constitution like Mark Levin (http://www.conservapedia.com/Mark_Levin) and Larry Arm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_P._Arnn), we find that the Framers and Founders did not, in fact, intend for the Judiciary to be a co-equal branch of government, but the weakest. This was because they feared an out of control court, and what Mark Levin has rightfully called (along with others) “judicial tyranny”. Because the Supreme Court, with it’s overwhelmingly leftist membership, has been allowed to run amok, dragging that leash that is the Constitution behind them, and neither Congress nor the Executive making any effort to even chase their dog (in fact, the current Executive has a vested interest in allowing their dog to run loose and randomly attack and destroy defenseless people), this is precisely why, today, judicial tyranny is what we are living under.

    In states like New Jersey, an incoming governor can tell a sitting member of their State Supreme Court that their provisionally lifetime seat has been taken away. They, periodically, come up for review, in order to keep their seats. Chris Christie has gotten rid of at least one, like this. In the US Constitution, as opposed to the New Jersey State Constitution, it is incumbent on the Executive and Legislature to keep a constant watch over the activities of the “Supreme” Court.

    “Section 1- Judicial powers. Tenure. Compensation.
    The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”

    “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,”

    Rendering verdicts that are unconstitutional, and even hearing cases that are beyond their jurisdictional authority, do not constitute “good behaviour”, and should be punished by removal through impeachment. In fact, some cases of their abuse of power should result in being criminally charged, under Title 18 of the United States Codes § 242 – DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW. They should literally be tried in federal court, and face massive fines and imprisonment in a federal prison, just like any other common criminal. Really, Congress doesn’t need to do more to spell out the limits of the “Supreme” Court; the Constitution already does that. What Congress needs to do is start living up to their responsibilities to represent the People, and start holding both the Executive and the Judiciary liable, in accordance to the Constitution. State legislatures, executives and judiciaries, should start living up to THEIR responsibilities, too, and shield their citizens from these irresponsible, unconstitutional and outright unlawful diktats from the federal courts, and declare them null and void, in their states, as well as criminalize any attempts to enforce unconstitutional legislation and court rulings. Congress was nothing but absolutely complicit with Obama, when they refused to block the confirmation of blatant, left-wing judicial activists and hacks like Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer, and continue their collusion against the People and the States, in refusing to impeach these bad actors for their bad behavior, under color of authority, and see to it that they’re criminally charged. All we need is in the Constitution, but when you have all 3 branches of government literally ignoring that, in order to make it up as they go along, again, referring to Mark Levin, what we have is a Post Constitutional Society, which is extremely dangerous, and a form of tyranny.

    As for picking and choosing what laws to obey, and what not to, I think the Founders and Framers did intend that, to a degree, and I think the 9th and 10th Amendments are reflections of that intent. When unconstitutional, illegal and unjust laws are handed down from a federalized government, that means that government has become unconstitutional, illegal and unjust, and it’s up to the States to protect their own citizens from overreaching, imperial, centralized government (like what we’re getting, today). If a law is in line with the Constitution, yes, I agree that the States can’t just ignore or think they can “nullify” it, but that’s not what we’re getting, today. Today, we have a federal government that tells us we have to lose our 1st Amendment rights; pay confiscatory, direct taxation for unconstitutional and illegal programs; only use light bulbs and toilets that they say we can; seize land across the country for their own use, in spite of the fact that they [the federal government] have absolutely zero constitutional authority to own a single blade of grass; they tell us how to build cars; they tell us we can’t engage in commerce across state lines, because of an intentional twisting of Article 1 enumerated powers, and so on. When we have an overreaching, out of control federal government that has no restraint, we have a serious threat on our hands. When we have both the States and the Federal Government picking and choosing laws to obey, as well as drafting laws with absolutely no basis in the Constitution, we have what has moved from a serious threat, to an existential threat.

    Thanks for the feedback, and have a great weekend.

  5. […] have to give up their 10 Amendment Rights for federally mandated gay marriage, remember that (https://virusx.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/why-the-gay-marriage-ruling-should-not-be-accepted-by-the-st…).  This law is a clear perversion of the Constitution’s more than apparent intent (which […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: