The judge’s decision is constitutional, imo, the individual states having the 10th Amendment-protected power to allow ungodly gay marriage.
Tho only way that I see to constitutonally protect traditional, one man, one woman marriage is for the states to amend the Constitution to outlaw all other forms of marriage.
“Tho only way that I see to constitutonally protect traditional, one man, one woman marriage is for the states to amend the Constitution to outlaw all other forms of marriage.”
I fear that you are correct. This is troubling, because we don’t have the states to pass such an Amendment now.
Fifteen years ago, a slam dunk. Even ten. But now? I just don’t see how the math could possibly work in our favor. We seem to have lost our opportunity.
RE: The judge’s decision is constitutional
No it isn’t. A judge cannot create a law that does not exist.
The people of NJ must vote and have it passed into law. That is the proper, constitutional way to do it.