Legally, nice try but no cigar.
SCOTUS has spoken affirmatively to the constitutionality of the issue.
No state constitutional amendment nor other addition, nor statute will superseded that.
Know we don’t like it, but it’s the law.
No...it is a closely decided judicial decision. The opinion of a few lawyers. It currently is given the force of law. But the ruling is contrary to history, culture and nature and stands on a foundation of sand.
The left's two greatest cultural accomplishments, abortion and gay marriage, are based on judicial fiat, not cultural and social acceptance. Both are horrible examples of constitutional law. Both are essentially non-democratic assertions of naked federal power and will forever divide our nation.
Well, no. Actually, courts rulings do not become law, they can only strike down existing laws or policy. Legislatures/congress must by any form pf logic, then go back and pass a corrected law that meets the scotus standard or no law regarding that subject exists.
For instance- in 2006 Missouri passed a constitutional amendment stating marriage is only between one man and one woman. That popular amendment ( passed with some 78% of the vote) was struck by the recent homo ruling. Just as I said before, the County Clerk lady who said she could not sign marriage certificates said so because her state’s law was ruled void by that scotus ruling. No law, no clerk actions. To my knowledge, TN ( or was it KY?) still has not amended its law regarding marriage to meet the scotus standard, so technically that state has no marriage laws that have force of law....
There is no delegation to the Federal government for their regulation of marriage, the power is reserved to the States.
The “equal protection” claim is bogus, no one has been denied equal protection of the law.
People can “define and express their identity” however they want, legal recognition of a group of persons is not required for any person to “define and express their identity” or to excersize their rights of association or their conjugal rights. Marriage laws do not in any way inhibit or infringe upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights.
Throughout history in every major society marriage has been between man and woman, or man and women. Now comes a novel definition. The advocates of this novel definition claim a right to legal recognition of their novel definition. There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for any purpose.
For the Supreme Court of the United States to use the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause to claim jurisdiction they must first adopt a radical and novel definition of “marriage”
Once the radical and novel definition of “marriage” has been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States they may then make a legitimate claim of an equal protection issue, but not until they have adopted the radical and novel definition of “marriage” is there an equal protection issue.
Not until they have adopted the radical and novel definition of “marriage” may they have the fig leaf of jurisdiction thus paving the way for the subsequent illicit imposition of the radical and novel definition of “marriage”
This circular absurdity is nothing compared to the breathtaking arrogance of declaring what the law of each and all of the States shall be.
By declaring that homosexuals may, in each and every State, marry, the Supreme Court of the United States have made themselves a Super-Legislature of ALL the States collectively as a whole - a Branch of Government which does not exist under the U.S. Constitution!
Not only have the made themselves legislators, they have erected a fourth Branch of Government. A fourth Branch of Government which substitutes its legislation for that of each and all of the States.
They have legislated. They have intruded upon the independent sovereignty of the States. They have acted entirely outside the Constitution.
To conceal and “justify” their compound criminality they clothe it with an invented “fundamental right” where there is no such right.
Whether its law or not,the states should refuse to comply with such an unholy,tyrannical abomination.
Once upon a time, Dred Scott was the law of the land too.
Others have given you cogent, reasoned rebuttals.
I shall take a different tack: Screw the SCOTUS. Screw the Federal Judiciary. They are all political hacks, the broken system is used only to further lawlessness and insanity, or weaponized for political ends. Screw them. Time to start utterly ignoring them.
Seriously.