Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog
Only if the Supreme Court again wrongly draws its authority from the States Bill of Rights, and once again "dictates" law from the bench in a very much unconstitutional mannerism, of allowing these limits of Federal Power to be inverted and limit the States/peoples will. For indeed...the ONLY place the concept of marriage and its defining characteristics are mentioned are in the States Book of Laws, for NO words are to be found in the Constitution addressing such. Thus, those words not found in the Constitution are the sole property of the States/People and as such they are unalienable by ANY FEDERAL COURT...to include the Supreme Court. See the 10th Article of our States Bill of Rights. Also just how could any legal system profess to be justified by totally ignoring over 200 years of legal precedence that has "clearly" established and defined marriage, as an "individual" right between a man and a woman, not a "group
right"...and deviating from that precedent of legal standard by "opinion" only, as to what some set of Judges declares as their ideology of morality....ignoring the constitutionally mandated right of the States/peoples to make law and set the precedent of declaring their own ideology of morality? BD
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
I get a kick out of how any Supreme Court is a "bunch of liberal wackos legislating laws from the bench" whenever their findings don't sit well with the Fundie crowd.
Don't hear a peep out of 'em whenever SCOTUS upholds the current additions to our pledge though.
Must be a couple of SCOTUS's running about.
"ignoring the constitutionally mandated right of the States/peoples to make law and set the precedent of declaring their own ideology of morality?"
This ruling doesn't effect heteroes at all, sparky. Don't like the idea of gay marriage? Don't have one.