SEE: Federal ruling clears way for same-sex marriage in Florida, starting on Tuesday
”On the first day of the New Year, a federal judge issued a landmark ruling that finally cleared the way for same-sex marriage in every county in Florida.
And, significantly, Attorney General Pam Bondi — Florida’s chief legal opponent to gay marriage — said the state would not try to block county clerks from issuing licenses, beginning as early as 12:01 a.m. Tuesday.”
While Obama’s Attorney General ignores the rule of law as set out in our Federal Constitution, Florida’s Attorney General, Pam Bondi, puts on a good show and then folds when a despotic judge tells her to fold. Pam Bondi ought to learn from Obama and issue a “memorandum” that state employees who comply with Judge Hinkle’s ruling would be violating their oath to support and defend our Federal Constitution and be submitting to judicial tyranny. And why do I say Judge Hinkle is engaging in judicial tyranny?
Early in 2014 Hinkle wrote in an opinion that it is a fundamental right to marry. What Hinkle ignores is the “fundamental right” to “marry” within a legal sense applies to one male and one female in Florida. Keep in mind that words or terms used in legislation, being dependent upon approval by a legislature adopting the legislation, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of the legislation's adoption…! The legal definition of marriage in Florida has always been defined as a union between one man and one woman. And so, the fundamental right mentioned by Judge Hinkle, unless altered by a legislative act or constitutional amendment applies to one male and one female and not a same sex couple.
Hinkle goes on to make an astounding assertion: “A state may override a fundamental right through measures that are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” This idea, that fundamental rights may be denied if there is a “compelling state interest” involved is traced to a despotic test invented by our Supreme Court and was unknown to our founding fathers. Since its creation it has been used by our courts to impose their whims and fancies under the rubric that a “compelling state interest” is or is not involved and is used by the court to totally ignore specific provisions spelled out in our Constitution and invent rights nowhere to be found in our Constitutions.
The idea that that constitutional guarantees and fundamental rights may not be enforced if a State can show denying the right "furthers some substantial state interest" is an absurdity and such a theory if allowed to stand would allow our judges and Justices to arbitrarily invent rights or negate every guaranteed right by simply saying it "furthers some substantial state interest"!
Judge Hinkle goes on to offer long winded pros and cons about the morality or immorality of marriage, and talks about same sex couples who want to be viewed as being “married”. But these arguments touted by Hinkle are totally irrelevant in a discussion concerning the rule of law and a State refusing to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple. The only issue at hand is whether or not doing so violates the State’s or Federal Constitution!
Hinkle incorrectly asserts: ”The right to marry is as fundamental for the plaintiffs in the cases at bar as for any other person wishing to enter a marriage or have it recognized.” Hinkle’s inaccuracy comes from the assertion that the legal definition of marriage is met when applied to a same sex couple [the plaintiffs]. But the truth is, It can only apply to each of the plaintiffs if they choose to marry a person of the opposite sex which then fulfills the legal definition of marriage, or if a State chooses to amend its Constitution and/or laws to accommodate a new definition of marriage. What the plaintiffs in this case are desirous of is something far different from ‘marriage” as the term has been understood in the State of Florida for hundreds of years and the Court is not free to change the definition of words to its own liking!
In regard to the Hinkle’s notion that the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent is to forbid a State from only issuing marriage licenses to couples consisting of one male and one female, and that such an idea is "discriminatory" and violates the equal protection of a State’s laws, that notion is totally without foundation and is a fabrication of the true intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment! And just what is the true intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment? It was summarized as follows by one of its supporters:
“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: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293
So, as it turns out, the 14th Amendment was not intended to forbid states from only issuing marriage licenses to couples consisting of one male and one female, nor intended to be a bar to every imaginable type of discrimination. And to allow charlatans and despots such as Judge Hinkle who use their office of public trust to erode our Constitution and supplant their whims and fancies as being within the meaning of our Constitution, is to submit to the very tyranny and despotism which our written Constitution was designed to protect us from. And this submission is what Pam Bondi is engaging in.
If Obama can issue a memorandum to forbid 5 million illegal aliens to face deportation and grant them other benefits which are only meant for legal immigrants, then Pam Bondi and the Governor of Florida should tell Hinkle to go pound sand, that his ruling violates the true intent and meaning of our Constitution, and the State of Florida will not submit to his judicial tyranny!
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
”On the first day of the New Year, a federal judge issued a landmark ruling that finally cleared the way for same-sex marriage in every county in Florida.
And, significantly, Attorney General Pam Bondi — Florida’s chief legal opponent to gay marriage — said the state would not try to block county clerks from issuing licenses, beginning as early as 12:01 a.m. Tuesday.”
While Obama’s Attorney General ignores the rule of law as set out in our Federal Constitution, Florida’s Attorney General, Pam Bondi, puts on a good show and then folds when a despotic judge tells her to fold. Pam Bondi ought to learn from Obama and issue a “memorandum” that state employees who comply with Judge Hinkle’s ruling would be violating their oath to support and defend our Federal Constitution and be submitting to judicial tyranny. And why do I say Judge Hinkle is engaging in judicial tyranny?
Early in 2014 Hinkle wrote in an opinion that it is a fundamental right to marry. What Hinkle ignores is the “fundamental right” to “marry” within a legal sense applies to one male and one female in Florida. Keep in mind that words or terms used in legislation, being dependent upon approval by a legislature adopting the legislation, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of the legislation's adoption…! The legal definition of marriage in Florida has always been defined as a union between one man and one woman. And so, the fundamental right mentioned by Judge Hinkle, unless altered by a legislative act or constitutional amendment applies to one male and one female and not a same sex couple.
Hinkle goes on to make an astounding assertion: “A state may override a fundamental right through measures that are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” This idea, that fundamental rights may be denied if there is a “compelling state interest” involved is traced to a despotic test invented by our Supreme Court and was unknown to our founding fathers. Since its creation it has been used by our courts to impose their whims and fancies under the rubric that a “compelling state interest” is or is not involved and is used by the court to totally ignore specific provisions spelled out in our Constitution and invent rights nowhere to be found in our Constitutions.
The idea that that constitutional guarantees and fundamental rights may not be enforced if a State can show denying the right "furthers some substantial state interest" is an absurdity and such a theory if allowed to stand would allow our judges and Justices to arbitrarily invent rights or negate every guaranteed right by simply saying it "furthers some substantial state interest"!
Judge Hinkle goes on to offer long winded pros and cons about the morality or immorality of marriage, and talks about same sex couples who want to be viewed as being “married”. But these arguments touted by Hinkle are totally irrelevant in a discussion concerning the rule of law and a State refusing to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple. The only issue at hand is whether or not doing so violates the State’s or Federal Constitution!
Hinkle incorrectly asserts: ”The right to marry is as fundamental for the plaintiffs in the cases at bar as for any other person wishing to enter a marriage or have it recognized.” Hinkle’s inaccuracy comes from the assertion that the legal definition of marriage is met when applied to a same sex couple [the plaintiffs]. But the truth is, It can only apply to each of the plaintiffs if they choose to marry a person of the opposite sex which then fulfills the legal definition of marriage, or if a State chooses to amend its Constitution and/or laws to accommodate a new definition of marriage. What the plaintiffs in this case are desirous of is something far different from ‘marriage” as the term has been understood in the State of Florida for hundreds of years and the Court is not free to change the definition of words to its own liking!
In regard to the Hinkle’s notion that the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent is to forbid a State from only issuing marriage licenses to couples consisting of one male and one female, and that such an idea is "discriminatory" and violates the equal protection of a State’s laws, that notion is totally without foundation and is a fabrication of the true intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment! And just what is the true intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment? It was summarized as follows by one of its supporters:
“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: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293
So, as it turns out, the 14th Amendment was not intended to forbid states from only issuing marriage licenses to couples consisting of one male and one female, nor intended to be a bar to every imaginable type of discrimination. And to allow charlatans and despots such as Judge Hinkle who use their office of public trust to erode our Constitution and supplant their whims and fancies as being within the meaning of our Constitution, is to submit to the very tyranny and despotism which our written Constitution was designed to protect us from. And this submission is what Pam Bondi is engaging in.
If Obama can issue a memorandum to forbid 5 million illegal aliens to face deportation and grant them other benefits which are only meant for legal immigrants, then Pam Bondi and the Governor of Florida should tell Hinkle to go pound sand, that his ruling violates the true intent and meaning of our Constitution, and the State of Florida will not submit to his judicial tyranny!
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
