Can Any GOP Candidate Urge Disobedience to Obergefell v Hodges?

Marco Rubio was confronted in New Hampshire by a married Gay man who asked him point blank why he wanted to take his rights away and that "WE" don't matter. Marco Rubio told him that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman and that Gay Marriage should be settled by the legislatures. Timothy Kierstead reminded Rubio that the issue was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court but Rubio would not say anymore other than he respected the man's opinion.

Question: None of the GOP candidates running for President support the Obergefell v Hodges Supreme Court decision and say they will appoint Judges to the bench who will want to overturn the decision, however, this decision has already made Gay marriages legal and those marriages cannot be dissolved once they have taken place. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees everyone equal protection under the laws and the U.S. Supreme Court did finally recognize Gay people as a minority when most of DOMA was abolished. I think the U.S. Supreme Court made the right decision with the case of Obergefell v Hodges and I applaud the majority of the Justices who made that decision.

I don't think any of the GOP candidates should boast about possibly overturning Obergefell v Hodges because Same-Sex Marriage is the law of the land. It is O.K. for them to disagree but they should acquiesce to the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

What is your opinion?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marco-rubio-gay-marriage_us_56b90dd4e4b08069c7a875fa

 

They can urge the disobedience of Obergefell all they want. They can moronically pledge that they will personally ignore or defy it although I don’t know what that would actually look like. All that they would accomplish-if for instance some states actually started to ban same sex marriage again- would be to plunge the country into a constitutional crisis and undermine our system of laws and government.

It is very disturbing that these candidates are still talking about this when the vast majority of the country has moved on from it. They are clearly pandering to the reactionary base, even in the face of many real and pressing problems facing the country.
I will add that it is highly inappropriate for them to pledge to apply a litmus test on a single issue to nominees to the court. They should not expect a candidate to state how they would vote on a case that has yet to be brought or heard. They can should be concerned with their knowledge , experience and yes- ideology and philosophy about government and the constitution only.

As far as what might happen down the road is concerned, I fear to say that with a new and more right wing makeup of the court anything is possible, including reversing themselves on Obergefell. Right now, there are only three hard core conservatives on the court but if a future president is able to stack the court with more of them, it may embolden opponents of marriage equality to bring new cases with different legal theories. They might try the well worn assertion that the 14th amendment is only properly applied to racial issues. They might claim a violation of religious freedom that we are hearing so much about from the right. Let’s face, even this court as made some bad decisions . While I generally have faith in the courts and believe in our legal system, I am also realistic about what can happen in the future with too many of the wrong people on the court.

 

Short of getting Obergefell overturned, I can see a President Ted Crazy Horse Cruz or a President Marco Robot Rubio doing something like ordering the Justice Department to vigorously defend states who chose to ban same sex marriage, in court. Perhaps even worse than that, they might order the US Marshals to not arrest the next Kim Davis who defies a federal court order and is in contempt. If that were to happen, we might as well tear up the constitution, disband the Federal Courts and reinstate the Articles of Confederation allowing the states to do whatever the @#%$$ they want. These people who will claim to be patriotic and to love the constitution-who call Obama " lawless"- are in reality a very serious threat to out system of laws and government.

 

I hope that the US Supreme Court objects to hearing any such case involving the overturn of Obergefell v Hodges because it would open up a Pandora's Box that would cause a large public outcry. To me, marriages cannot be dissolved unless both parties agree to a divorce. Some of the GOP candidates think that an Amendment to the Constitution would nullify Same-Sex Marriage but it sure would be an uphill battle to get 38 States to ratify such an Amendment and I think deep down inside their hearts they know such an attempt would be futile. Sometimes a Justice can be dishonest or not vague when asked by a President about a stand on a certain issue, thus, doing a complete turnaround once he or she is actually appointed to the Supreme Court.

 

You are right to say that a constitutional amendment is pretty much out of the question. However, as I said what the SCOTUS might do is another story. If they were to overturn Obergefell it would in effect turn the issue back to the states. The states might stop same sex marriage without nullifying those that already took place, or actually try to un-marry people. In either case it would be a mess and a travesty. By the way, Ted Crazy Horse Cruz was criticized by Mike the Candidate from Hell Huckabee for not being anti-gay enough. Cruz wants to let the states decided. Huckabee wants gay marriage outlawed altogether.

 

]

President Obama’s final State of the Union address reminded us of how far we’ve come and all the gains our community has made.

Here are four ways the incredible progress under President Obama could be rolled back:

1.) Marriage Equality

Six GOP presidential candidates--- Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee —have signed a pledge in support of the discriminatory First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). With the pledge-- created by the American Principles Project, the Heritage Action for America (the action arm of the Heritage Foundation), and FRC Action (the legislative affiliate of the Family Research Council)--presidential candidates vow to pass FADA in their first 100 days in office. Donald Trump and Rand Paul have also voiced support for FADA.

FADA would enable Kim Davis-like discrimination against the LGBT community. It would allow non-profit organizations and businesses contracting with the federal government to circumvent critical federal protections designed to protect same-sex couples and their families from harmful discrimination. Following the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in U.S. v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges, same-sex married couples are entitled to all federal spousal benefits regardless of where they live. Under FADA, however, individual businesses could run roughshod over the civil rights of these couples and deny them the spousal benefits they have earned and deserve. Read more http://www.hrc.org/blog/whats-at-stake-for-the-next-president1

 

Rubio Tells Man And His Husband To Change The Law If They Disagree With His Anti-Gay Marriage Stance

Campaigning In New Hampshire Florida Senator Apparently Unaware Of Last Year's Supreme Court Ruling http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen..._disagree_with_his_anti_gay_marriage_position

Rubio Bot is an idiot but I don't think that he is unaware of the decision. He just doesn't recognize it.

 

Ted Crazy Horse Cruz as some impressive friends......yes sir!

Phil Robertson: 'Rid The Earth Of' Gay Marriage Supporters Submitted by Brian Tashman on Monday, 2/1/2016 10:20 am

While stumping in Iowa for Ted Cruz on Sunday, “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson declared that gay marriage is a sign of growing “depravity” and “perversion” in America. Robertson, notorious for his racist and anti-gay remarks, said of marriage equality: “It is evil, it’s wicked, it’s sinful and they want us to swallow it.” “We have to run this bunch out of Washington D.C.,” Robertson said. “We have to rid the earth of them. Get them out of there.” Cruz followed Robertson on stage, calling the reality TV star “a joyful, cheerful, unapologetic voice of truth.” - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...-gay-marriage-supporters#sthash.sB7D5vgh.dpuf

 

After last June’s historic Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states, “the love that dare not speak its name,” which publicly outed Oscar Wilde at his “gross indecency” trial in 1895, is finally and forever out of the closet.

We were told by religious conservatives if the U.S. legalized such an ungodly act as same-sex marriage, it would not only end the institution of marriage but bring about the demise of civilization. Many also said the righteous hand of God would stop same-sex marriages before they could occur. People like Kim Davis took it upon themselves to do "God's work" by engaging in civil disobedience and refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It didn't work.

But even before last year’s ruling, we often publicly revealed our affection for one another.

For example, during the repressive 1950s McCarthy era, Gladys Bentley (pictured), a talented pianist and blues singer, and one of the most notorious and successful African-American lesbians during the Harlem Renaissance, sang raunchy and salacious lyrics to popular tunes. Bentley not only sang about gay sex but also lived and celebrated her sexual orientation. Known to perform in her infamous white tuxedo and top hat, Bentley played with gender and sex before even the bravest mainstream performers would. http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/2/09/lets-celebrate-all-kinds-love-valentines-day

 

There is something in the Senate right now called the equality act. It will add lgbt to the list of protected classes.

Should that pass, I don't think overturning the oberfell decision will have any teeth.

Honestly I don't think they will. They are just trying to secure the religious right vote.

 

Yes I know. I also knew that we could count on you to show up here and contribute. This has been a pretty tame thread so far considering the subject matter. I have been staying away for a while and I'm surprised to see that the usual flame baiters and trolls are not pilling on. What ever happened to Dixon? ( not that I miss him) Anyway, all of my infractions have expired so I'm good to go ( But I will be more careful) LOL .

 

I'm not exactly sure. I've decided it isn't productive to bicker with people that aren't reasonable. So if he did post I wouldn't be aware.

 

They can say whatever they want- they will pander to their voters.

In the unlikely event that one of them is elected, there is little that they can do about the decision.

 

You would ignore your fellow Texan?? LOL

 

Having lived in the sane state as me doesn't get any favour.

 

This is good news because if the Senate includes LGBT rights with the Civil Rights Act, this will be another victory for the LGBT Community.

 

Cruz along with Huckabee and Bobby Jindal attended a rally by Kevin Swanson who calls for the execution of Gays. I hope Hillary berates Cruz for associating with such a demented man.

 

If you ask me it's the final victory.

 

I am well aware of that. I too hope that Clinton would use that angst him if he were the nominee. If she doesn't , there is something terribly wrong going on.

 

I think they all need to abide by the decision of SCOTUS; it's the mechanism we use in this country to settle issues that come up; if they are so opposed to the concept of same-sex marriage, then they should amend the Constitution to their liking.

 

I hope FADA goes down the drain.

 

That won't pass muster. The first amendment forbids the state making any laws that respect the establishment of a religion. Allowing government officials the opportunity to deny licensure to somebody based on the official's religion is the destruction of the first amendment.

 

Of course I agree with you. However, we must not forget that we are not talking about sane and rational people here. Nothing will stop these wing nuts from trying to pass it. And if they do, they will spend years and millions of dollars defending it in court, while those who are effected by it suffer. And by the time it reaches SCOTUS, who knows what the makeup of the court will be.

 

Kentucky has already changed the law so that Kim Davis doesn't have to affix her name on same-sex marriage licenses....

she's "won" on her "religious liberty"....but her supporters have actually lost as it's pretty clear even Red State Kentucky doesn't want to oppose Obergefell and they want the licenses issued.

 

It's hard to believe but it's still not over in KY. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...y-clerk-kim-davis-passed-committee/80213680/#

The Republicans are still trying to find a way to discriminate. Different licenses for gays. Geeezzzz