“This right is deeply rooted in the nation’s history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty because it protects an individual’s ability to make deeply personal choices about love and family free from government interference.”
Ok...such bs.
Since the judge seems to depend on this “logic” as a core underpinning of his decision, can that be attacked in an appeal?
Its fairly obvious that homosexuality was never a thought to the founders nor in their wildest dreams a right.
Also, the fact that there are marriage laws at all IS a government interference...Should we just not have any laws about it, then?
Hmmmm....
Wasn’t homosexuality a hanging offense at the time the Constitution was write? Didn’t it remain so until the 1940’s when it was deemed a mental illness? So how can a behavior that has been practiced by criminals and crazies have deep roots in tradition in any beneficial way?