Tag Archives: same-sex marriage

legal news

It’s all about ‘equal protection’

Let’s set the record straight on a key constitutional point: the nation’s founders didn’t get it entirely correct when they drafted the U.S. Constitution in the late 18th century; it has needed amendments designed to provide for a “more perfect Union.”

The 14th Amendment, enacted in 1868, states, “nor shall any State … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Equal Protection Clause contained in the first part of that amendment, therefore, means that no one shall be denied the right to marry the person they love. Period. Full stop.

That also means the U.S. Senate acted correctly this week when it cast a bipartisan vote to codify that same-sex and interracial marriage shall be part of the federal statutes.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Equal Protection Clause when it endorsed same-sex marriage in 2015. That protection, though, is in jeopardy, given the court’s recent ruling to strike down Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion. Conservative justices have hinted they might be inclined to strike down the Equal Protection Clause, too, the benchmark for the ruling that allowed same-sex and interracial marriage.

That cannot be allowed to happen.

It’s also instructive that two of the “no” votes in the Senate came from Texas’s two Republican senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, both of whom profess to be legal scholars. They, instead, are revealing their partisan stripes, appealing to the wild-eyed base within the GOP’s lunatic voters.

I could have predicted that Ted Cruz would have voted that way. Cornyn’s “no” vote is deeply disappointing. At least, though, they’re both on the record saying that they are unwilling to offer protection to all Americans, giving them the constitutional right to marry the person they love.

Next comes the House of Representatives. May that body show the wisdom demonstrated by most of their Senate colleagues and then send this legislation to President Biden’s desk for his signature that makes it the law of this great land.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Cruz is the one who’s wrong!

Rafael Edward Cruz says the Supreme Court decided wrongly when it legalized same-sex marriage in this country.

Well, the junior Texas Republican U.S. senator — to my total non-surprise — is about as wrong as he can get on that one. The Cruz Missile, indeed, has misfired once more.

The court ruled in 2015 in the noted Obergefell v. Hodges case that same-sex marriage is as legal as heterosexual marriage. It was seen as a monumental victory for the “equality movement” that said gay couples shouldn’t be discriminated against on the basis of whom they love.

I believe the court ruled correctly. My benchmark lies in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; the final clause of Section 1 declares: “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.”

Yes, no one should be denied “equal protection of the laws.” What part of that clause does Sen. Cruz reject?

Sen. Ted Cruz said the Supreme Court wrongly decided Obergefell, the ruling that legalized same-sex marriage (msn.com)

Ted Cruz and other archconservatives are feeling mighty smug these days in the wake of the court’s 5-4 ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 50-year-old landmark ruling that had legalized abortion. Cruz and other right-wingers now are drawing a bead on gay marriage.

Cruz is about as wrong as anyone can get, at least from my perspective, in condemning the court’s ruling on the Obergefell case. The way I read the 14th Amendment tells me — without equivocation — that no American should be denied the right to marry whomever they wish.

That is precisely what “equal protection under the laws” provides all Americans … no matter what.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Judges seek permission to violate their oaths of office

Two Texas judges, Brian K. Umphress in Jack County and Diane Hensley in McLennan County, are suing the state because their religious faith compels them to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

Hmm. OK. Let me pose this question: What part of the oath of office you took that says you shall obey all the laws of the state and be faithful to the U.S. Constitution don’t you understand? 

These individuals both swore to uphold the secular laws of the counties they were elected to govern. The oath demands that they are faithful to those laws. It makes no mention of their religious beliefs or gives them any room to say, “Well, I’ll obey only those laws that do not conflict with my faith.”

This is nonsense.

Both of these judges are empowered by the Texas Constitution to perform marriage ceremonies. The Constitution, though, does not require them to perform every single service that shows up on their agenda.

These individuals have sued the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, which has sanctioned them for refusing to perform the duties to which they swore their oath. The Dallas Morning News reports, by the way, that even though Umphress presides over the Jack County Commissioners Court, he is not a “law judge.”

Justice of the Peace Hensley also is empowered to perform marriages. She has refused for the same reason that Umphress cites. I should tell her the same thing: Such empowerment is not a requirement.

Both of these folks can hand those duties off to other duly empowered county officials if they cannot in good faith perform that duty.

I also need to remind them both — although they know it already — that the U.S. Supreme Court, citing its belief in the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution, has declared gay marriage to be legal in all 50 states. 

If the laws of the land do not comport with these judges’ religious beliefs, then they shouldn’t be serving in their respective public offices.

religious news

This just in from Kentucky: Kim Davis loses

Who, you might ask, is Kim Davis?

She is a Rowan County (Ky.) clerk who made a spectacle of herself when she declined to sign marriage licenses requested by same-sex couples. That was her reaction to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2015 that made gay marriage legal in all 50 states.

Well, Davis has lost her bid for re-election.

Too bad? Actually, no. It isn’t.

Davis proclaimed that her religious beliefs precluded her from signing marriage license requests for gay couples. She had run initially as a Democrat; she switched parties, becoming a Republican. Her refusal to uphold her oath landed her in jail briefly. She came out and made a big show of it by standing alongside Baptist preacher (and former Arkansas governor) Mike Huckabee.

Here’s the deal, though. Davis’s oath of office demanded that she obey the U.S. Constitution. She declined to remain faithful to her oath. She then let deputy clerks sign those certificates to protect the boss from doing so.

She’ll be out of office by the time January rolls around. That’s fine. Hit the road, Mme. Clerk.

media news, national news

Feds have no say in marriage? Um, yes, they do!

The issue of marriage came up as a side issue in an editorial published by a Texas newspaper. I feel the need to set the record straight about what rights the federal government has in determining marriage.

The Amarillo Globe-News said this, among other things, in discussing states’ rights on sports betting and a recent Supreme Court ruling on that subject: The federal government has no right to define marriage in any way, shape or form. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court sees fit to define marriage for the entire nation. Again – no state’s rights here.

The AGN is seeking to ascertain where states’ rights are relevant and where federal authority supersedes them.

Read the editorial here.

Back to the point: The Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that the U.S. Constitution — the document that governs the entire nation — has a clause that requires all citizens to have “equal protection under the law.” That was the basis of its ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 our states.

This isn’t a deeply held secret ruling concocted in some star chamber by a majority of the Supreme Court justices. The law is clear. Marriage becomes a federal issue if someone chooses to seek a legal remedy that they believe violates one of the key provisions of the Constitution.

Equal protection is such a key provision. Thus, when a segment of our population is denied the right to marry whoever they love, then the federal judiciary has an obligation to set the record straight.

States have no right, therefore, under the federal Constitution, to deny any American their guarantee of equal protection under the law.

Are we clear now? Good!

Uncategorized

Stunning profile may emerge on local judicial bench

The Texas Panhandle received excellent federal judicial service for nearly four decades, thanks to the steady hand provided by U.S. District Judge Mary Lou Robinson.

She is stepping aside. A new president has nominated a replacement for Judge Robinson. But some potentially chilling information is coming forth about the new guy.

The Texas Tribune is reporting on statements made by another judicial nominee who is linked to the man Donald Trump has selected for the Northern District of Texas federal bench. Jeff Mateer formerly served as general counsel for a right-wing advocacy group, the First Liberty Institute; Matthew Kaczmaryk — Trump’s choice to succeed Robinson — is deputy general counsel for the same group. Mateer now works in the Texas attorney general’s office. Follow me for a moment.

Mateer is Trump’s pick for another federal judgeship. He reportedly believes transgender children are part of “Satan’s work.”

In a 2015 speech, Mateer said this, according to the Texas Tribune Texas Tribune, about the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage in the United States: “I mean, it’s disgusting,” he said. “I’ve learned words I didn’t know. There are people who marry themselves. Somebody wanted to marry a tree. People marrying their pets. It’s just like — you know, you read the New Testament and you read about all the things and you think, ‘Oh, that’s not going on in our community.’ Oh yes it is. We’re going back to that time where debauchery rules.”

There you have it: Same-sex marriage equals “debauchery,” according to Mateer. The nation’s highest court ruled that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that all Americans are entitled to “equal protection under the law,” meaning that gay Americans have a constitutional right to marry people of the same gender.

My question is whether Kaczmaryk is cut from the same mold as Mateer, given that they both work for the same ultra-right wing advocacy group.

Is this the kind of justice we can expect from the federal bench in Amarillo? Please say it won’t be so.

legal news, State news

‘Equal protection’ or not, from the high court?

I totally understand that court rulings can be complicated and that there often is more than meets the eye.

Thus, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Houston city employees aren’t guaranteed all spousal rights if they’re married to someone of the same sex.

The state’s highest civil appellate court said in its ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that legalized gay marriage didn’t cover all the benefit rights that one thought might accrue for the same-sex spouses. As the Texas Tribune reported: “As part of a case challenging Houston’s benefits policy, the Supreme Court suggested a landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage does not fully address the right to marriage benefits. Justice Jeffrey Boyd, writing on behalf of the court in a 24-page opinion, said there’s still room for state courts to explore the ‘reach and ramifications’ of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.”

Court ruling deals blow

I admit readily that I’m a bit slow on the uptake at times. However, as I read the U.S. Supreme Court decision on this matter, I am certain I read something about the court deciding that the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” extended to gay couples just as it does to all American citizens. The U.S. Constitution is clear in its guarantee of equal protection under the law to every American; it doesn’t take Americans’ sexual orientation into account.

Why, then, aren’t same-sex spouses entitled to the same rights as those involved in heterosexual marriages?

My hope would be that the U.S. Supreme Court could clear up, somehow, this apparent discrepancy.

national news

Sen. Wofford to get married … big deal? Well, yes

wofford

Two blog posts in a row on a matter that makes me uncomfortable …

Bear with me on this one.

Former U.S. Sen. Harris Wofford was married to a woman for 48 years. Then his wife, Clare, died of leukemia in 1996. Sen. Wofford was despondent.

Then he met someone else five years later.

The someone else is Matthew Charlton. Wofford and Charlton fell in love. And so, quite soon, the two of them are going to get married.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3556283/Former-senator-married-wife-48-years-reveals-marry-new-male-partner-fifty-years-junior.html

Wofford is now 90 years of age. He served with distinction in World War II in the U.S. Army Air Corps. He and Clare produced three children.

I get that people of Wofford’s generation who were gay perhaps were afraid to reveal their sexuality in that earlier time. I also believe Sen. Wofford’s statements about how deeply in love he was with Clare.

Then he has this new love interest enter his life. Is it a big deal that the new significant other is of the same gender? It’s not nearly as big a deal as it would have been a generation or two or three ago.

The truly weird part of this story to my way of thinking is that Matthew Charlton is now 40 years old. He is five decades younger than Sen. Wofford.

Wofford said he never attached the terms “gay” or “straight” to his sexual orientation.

He said he’s now just happy to have found love once again. That it happens to be with a man must be just, well, the way it is.

A lot of us out here in the peanut gallery who are watching this latest chapter in the life of a one-time public man are left to wonder: What in the world is up with that huge age difference?

 

national news, Uncategorized

A compromise in Rowan County?

Kim-Davis-450x253

Kim Davis went back to work Monday in Rowan County, Ky.

The question loomed: Would she do her taxpayer-funded job, which includes issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

Well, no, but actually yes.

Davis, the rogue county clerk who spent a few days in the slammer when a federal judge found her in contempt of court for railing to issue the licenses, said she wouldn’t do issue the licenses herself, but wouldn’t stand in the way of her deputy clerks who chose to do their jobs on her behalf.

You know, that sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.

If only, though, Davis would understand a couple of key points in this ridiculous sideshow.

One is that her religious faith isn’t being challenged. Two is that she took an oath to serve the entire public, and that includes gay citizens who, according to the nation’s highest court, are entitled to the same rights as all U.S. citizens.

If she can’t perform all the duties she took an oath to perform, she ought to quit.

 

 

national news

Klansman responds to blog

2 Comments

In February of this year, I posted a blog about the Ku Klux Klan and how it continues to promote a message of hate … even though some within the organization profess to have moved past the KKK’s bloody and murderous past.

I referenced a fellow from Mississippi, a Klansman, who said he would fight against efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in next-door Alabama.

Well, overnight, the Klansman — Brent Waller — responded to my blog post.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/02/15/kkk-spews-same-old-hate-message/comment-page-1/#comment-4709

It’s at the end of this post. I encourage you to read it.

I’m going to make only one response to the fellow’s view of the state of things in the United States.

He seems to think the country is going straight to hell. He blames all that is wrong today on those who won what he calls the “second war of independence.” He means, of course, the Civil War and he blames the Union’s victory for what has happened in the country.

I prefer to think our nation has had a much more positive trajectory since the end of the Civil War. We went through that period called “Reconstruction,” which meant we had to rebuild the former Confederate States of America; we went through the civil rights movement, which the Klan opposed; we enacted landmark legislation granting all Americans — regardless of race — the rights of full citizenship, which the Klan also opposed.

Waller thinks we’re headed for some abyss.

I beg to differ.

Still, I welcome this man’s comments and I laud him for putting them out there for the public to read.

***

There 14th amendment was added after the war of northern agression. The Southern states Legislative bodys were filled with black puppets, so their Amendment is therefore a Tyrants Amendment.

Almost every thing wrong with this country can be traced to the doorsteps of those who won the 2nd war for independence.

I will not stoop to your childish name calling level, but do suggest a relearning of the true history of the war, and the Tyranny that existed in my state at the hands of Barbarians from 1865 to 1877.

The Ku Klux organized and drove the disgusting international carpetbaggers from our state, and brought an end to the lie called ” Reconstruction”.

The Bible clearly states a man shall not lie with a man as a woman. This nation was built as one nation under god.

It is our duty as Christians and Klansmen to oppose Tyranny, and the crowd that follows in the sin of Satan. Unnatural sex, and unnatural marriage goes against the Word.

Do you suggest White Christians who sailed the ocean and fought for this country with their blood just simply give it up to Tyrants, International bankers, lunatics and fools?

Being gay is a choice people make. They make these choices as they were constantly told, by the international carpetbaggers media that the sins of Homosexuality are OK.

The carpetbaggers fear Nationalism, so they are in a mode to destroy America from within. They are pouring in the third world masses and promoting Homosexuality. They finance all elections and only support those who prosdtitute their votes for money. These slimy prostitutes deserve a special seat at Satan’s table.

Throughout history when the grip of the Tyrants hand gets to tight upon the God Fearing White mans throat, He rises up and slays the Tyrants. So just to answer your question of how White men fight, start with the French Revolution and read.

If you as a person promote the enemy’s agenda of Homosexuality you need to check your Morals.

This serpent as you called me is not the Grand Dragon, He is the elected Imperial Wizard of the United Dixie White Knights. My Ancestors fought in the American Revolution and every war since they helped build the American Republic.

I’m a husband and father, and a man who has a thorough understanding of how this country was founded and the atrocities of the revolutionaries who won the second war for independence. Most simply have no clue and are trained sheep.

To ignore the word of God is risky business

Have fierry cross will travel

IW Brent Waller
UDWK LLC