[Indy Pendance]

Seriously, how would the courts intervine? What decisions could they rule upon, what precidents can they cite? This decision is, and my example is, just the tip of the iceburg. Don't you get the feeling this is just another nail in the coffin of our constitution?

[William McKinley]

I see it the other way. I see it as a case of a side which has been trying to boil a frog by slowly increasing the gas turning the knob too audaciously, and the critter is about to jump out of their pot.

But, if the precedent of judges being able to dictate from the bench what legistlatures cannot or will not is allowed to stand forever, then you are right. But I don't think that trend will be allowed to stand. It required people not noticing that we have a tryanny of the judiciary, but rulings like this are waking people up.

Or at least, that is the sense of my optimistic eyes.

I can see it now, a court ruling that the first amendment's edict that Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion does not mean that churches can 'discriminate' against gay church members. Can't you?

[SunStar]

Don't you get the feeling this is just another nail in the coffin of our constitution?

Not if the Constitution is amended.