I wish states could decide about abortion, too, that would be a step in the a consistent direction.
Actually I’d like federal recognition of the unborns’ right to live, but, this decision is inconsistent.
If states can regulate whether two faggots can pretend to be a married man and woman, they should be able to regulate whether or not you can kill your child.
We have a winner!!!!
The liberals change the criteria based on whatever supports the liberal view of an issue.
So, in the case of abortion, they don’t want states to have any say, because Roe Vs. Wade created a broad federal right to abortion. The federal courts decision is binding on the states, say the liberals there.
But on marriage, the liberals take the opposite position, that states rights are paramount, and that the federal government has no right to define marriage.
Liberals are not known for having any consistent principles. The Defense of Marriage Act case is a prime example, since in that case, they argued that the states have the right to define marriage, not the federal government.
I can just hear the liberals complaining tomorrow. Today they celebrate the marriage ruling. Tomorrow they will complain that we have a “patchwork quilt” of state marriage laws, in which most states still do not recognize homosexual marriage. Nothing in the court case compels a state to do so. So the liberals will have a new set of things to bitch about.
The kings have made a political ruling. Surely you don’t expect the kings to rule from principles? /s