Heterosexuals have the legal right to marry willing, unmarried, adult members of the opposite sex who are not close relatives, and homosexuals also have that right. That's the definition of marriage and all people have that right; there is no discrimination beyond the degree to which perverts choose to discriminate against themselves by rejecting the opportunity for a true marriage.
Since most of this homosexual marriage trumps the people, and often the legislature, a count should be made of exactly how many people have inflicted this on the rest of us.
For example, a single federal judge imposing his will on an entire state just counts as “1”. In states with say 100 state legislators, in which a bare majority, 51, voted for it, they count as only “51”.
The bottom line is that *only* perhaps 200 to 1000 people have forced their will on a nation of perhaps 330 million, to make a new law that the vast number of people reject.
That *isn’t* democracy. That *isn’t* republican democracy. That is tyranny, plain and simple.
I guess they don’t understand the concept of separation of powers.
Politicians and judges do not care what the voters want. It is what they want.
Because we have allowed government to define “marriage” for its own purposes (such as taxation and regulation of estates), we have allowed government to define marriage as a social institution. That was fine as long as people in control of government were generally supportive of God’s original definition of marriage. However we have entered a time when a growing number of people in control of government want to redefine marriage for their own purposes, which in part is contrary to God’s definition.
Marriage is now far more a matter of politics and ideology than of private religious beliefs.
Therefore, for the sake of marriage as God defines it, it is time to remove from government the power to define who is married and who is not. Then gays could form whatever relationships they please but they could not force those who disagree to be enablers for those relationships. And we would not have schools that must teach that homosexual “marriages” are just as legitimate as heterosexual ones. Nor would we have owners of wedding photography services being threatened with arrest and being convicted of a crime for merely declining to artfully photograph a “marriage” they find morally repugnant.
Marriage isn't a right....even for heterosexuals. It is a contract.
It's like saying I have a right to own a house. I don't. I can be turned away if I don't have the financial status to support a loan. I have a right to pursue happiness. Doesn't mean I'll catch it.
Society puts some things off limits or within limitations. I don't have a right to be a math teacher. I have to earn the credentials. If I don't earn the credentials, then it becomes evident that I did not have such a right.
If these judges are appointed for life then the legislature might as well save its breath.Terrorists in black robes.
How can the state supreme cout strike down a constitutional amendment? That should not be possible, by definition.