“I think they have a valid point.”
BULL BOVINE!
The people, for a variety of reasons, voiced their decision....TWICE. Now, because that decision did not reflect the liberals ideology (and you wish to bring up “biblical static”?), they tried to use the courts (and are now trying to use our judicial branch AGAIN) to completely invalid the publics decisions.
What are ya, a gay advocate?!
The issue before the court is NOT “marriage” it is the METHOD USED TO PASS THE REFERENDUM.
Pounding on a podium and talking about marriage itself is not a valid legal issue before the court.
Valid Question before the court is:
Did the court adequatly review the amendment before allowing it on the ballot?
Is this a change to the contitution or just an amendment to the constitution?
When the court said homosexuals have a “right to marry” was the court adding to the constitution? if that is so, then the amendment should NOT have been granted clearance to appear to the voters.
The court needs to be focused on their INCONSISTENT positions.
The people did speak, and this is an issue of whether or not a third party can file an amicus brief. When they petition to file an amicus brief they have to identify what they would be adding to the conversation.
Remember the issue is NOT homosexual marriage, it is procedure.