[Cboldt]

I agree with the outcome, but disagree vigorously with the proposed solution. Impeach the judges, recall the defective executives (SF Mayor, CA DA).

[commish]

I think you will have many people with the same feelings, and I can definately see your argument. Changing the Constitution is no small thing.

However, I think we have seen that we can no longer trust the Judiciary to do the right thing; and that extends all the way to the SCOTUS (IE Texas Sodomy decision). The Liberals and fringe lunatics have infiltrated the court and corrupted the process completely. IMpeachment is a drawn out and impractical endevour in this case, and changing the laws will only work as far as the next kangaroo court.

Constitutional amendment is unfortunately the only answer I see in this case. To me, the sanctity of marraige is that important.

[mylife]

I agree with the outcome, but disagree vigorously with the proposed solution. Impeach the judges, recall the defective executives (SF Mayor, CA DA).

I agree, An amendment to the constitution is not the answer, unless that amendment addresses the issue of these renegade judges

[shhrubbery!]

I agree with the outcome, but disagree vigorously with the proposed solution. Impeach the judges, recall the defective executives (SF Mayor, CA DA).

I partly agree your point of view, but it's impractical. Impeachment is extremely difficult in most cases. When impeachment fails (as it almost surely would), what are we supposed to do -- lie back and enjoy the ride?

We've had autocratic and imperious judges at least since Roger Taney (and going as far back as SCOTUS's power grab in Marbury v. Madison).

How are we going to stop them, other than with a democratic process of constitutional amendment?

It took a civil war to overturn Mr. Taney. I'm afraid there's nothing short of an amendment that will overturn the leftist cabal in Boston and S.F.