As far as I am concerned, the majority of what we call our Supreme Court were neither nominated in sovereign faith, nor confirmed in the faith of the US Constitution.
They were nominated by would-be tyrants and confirmed by sychophants and self-aggrandizing puppet Senators not even worth the paper they wipe their bums with.
I’m hoping for a national “Mulligan” and being given the chance to start over without pandering to the useless in our society.
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." -- Thomas Jefferson
Government does not have to power to add or detract from the legitimacy of marriage.
What they are addressing is the government's position for legal purposes of homosexual so-called "marriages" which are really civil contracts.
Might is Right.
Not morally right, but that is how the world works.
He who is willing to do the most violence wins. Our government enforces its will using the threat of violence. The Second Amendment is about the threat of violence in return.
Regarding the title of the referenced article, as a consequence of parents not making sure that their children are taught the Constitution and its history, many citizens evidently do not understand that the Supreme Court is not the end of the road with respect to its interpretation of the Constitution for controversial issues.
More specifically, when state lawmakers actually knew the Constitution that they swear to protect and defend, they knew that they could effectively overturn a given Supreme Court decision by appropriately amending the Constitution. In fact the 11th, 16th and 19th Amendments are examples of the states doing so.
Regarding marriage, if children were taught the Constitution and its history they would be able to tell us the following about the constitutonality of gay marriage. The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about issues like marriage means that government power to address such issues is automatically reserved uniquely to the states, or to the people. So in euthanasia cases like Terri Schiavo and state eminent domain cases like Kelo v. New London, Constitution-ignorant citizens who followed those cases unsurprisingly didn’t understand that the Supreme Court respected 10A protected state powers is those cases even though pro-big federal government activist justices probably don’t like talking about 10A.
Sadly, if activist majority justices usurp 10A protected state power to address marriage and decide in favor of gay marriage, I think that Constitution-ignorant state lawmakers will be clueless to ratify an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting gay marriage.
‘Know this: Marriage belongs unto God, not unto Caesar. That the Supreme Court might even think itself capable of redefining the pre-eminent and the most fundamental of all human social institutions represents an intolerable commingling of state and church. Its the Supreme Court encroaching upon the Supreme Authority.’