martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 85,121
- 35,661
- 2,300
- Thread starter
- #21
You're the one that's stretching with your strawman OP.Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...
Nice stretch there, but it doesn't retort any of my statements.
btw, judicial fiat is untrue. Judges are empowered to rule on the constitutionality of a law AND citizens aren't allowed to vote on civil rights, constitutionally.
First, my OP contained someone else's article, so even if it was a strawman, its not mine.
Second, you still didn't retort each of the statements I DID make. Some vague references to "the paperwork is too hard ZOMG" doesn't count as a retort.
Finally, Judicial fiat is very true when justices decide they can make crap up or ignore parts of the constitution as they see fit. What we have now is amendment by proxy, not interpretation.