- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,435
- 32,426
- 2,300
The SC should have upheld the Constitution and remained mute on it. States have always defined marriage, how close a blood relative could be, ages, etc. Wht didn't the SC decide on that? Because it was none of their business. But they succumbed to political correctness and activist pressure.It was shot down by the people in most of the states so judges were over ruling them by judicial decree. So calling it spreading through the states is quite a reacharound.Good on him.
Trump says he's 'fine' with legalization of same-sex marriage
How do his fans feel about this?
.
One can be for SSM, just not in favor of the mechanism used to force it on the rest of the country.
What mechanism?
Legalization was spreading through the states before the SCOTUS even agreed to pick it up. Seems like that is a decent mechanism.
I actually supported it in NY, and was glad it passed. What I then hoped for was a Federal decisions enforcing full faith and credit, but alas the SC went full retard and once again overstepped its bounds.
Since bullying is now deciding social standards I want the government to totally get out of the marriage business and recognize no relationship apart from the contract you made with whomever.
States could always decide WHO they issued marriage licenses to, but they still had to accept ones that didn't meet their criteria under full faith and credit.
To me the Constitution being mum on the issue means it devolves to the State legislatures, period.