1. Four judges of the SJC in Mass. rewrote their constitution to require that homosexuals be allowed to marry.
2. The FF&C clause means that married homosexuals will fan out to the other states and file suits demanding that their marriages be recognized there.
Your basic assumption is DEAD WRONG. The Constitution HAS ALREADY BEEN CHANGED, as a result of those two conditions. And only a constitutional amendment can PUT IT BACK as it has been for more than two centuries.
There, is that plain enough so even you can understand it?
John / Billybob
You end your latest screed with this: "leave our constitutional basics as written." You have missed the point, and apparently not heard of either the Massachusetts decision or the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution.
Typical bombast, billy. -- You decree I've missed some point you haven't made.
1. Four judges of the SJC in Mass. rewrote their constitution to require that homosexuals be allowed to marry.
More bombast. -- Judges don't have that power, and you know it, or should.
2. The FF&C clause means that married homosexuals will fan out to the other states and file suits demanding that their marriages be recognized there.
And the States can tell them to take a hike. Perfectly constitutional to do so.
Your basic assumption is DEAD WRONG. The Constitution HAS ALREADY BEEN CHANGED, as a result of those two conditions. And only a constitutional amendment can PUT IT BACK as it has been for more than two centuries.
Capitalizing bombastic words doesn't make your 'argument' billy. -- In fact its a ploy to cover up the fact that you rarely if ever present a rational rebuttal. A lawyer that can't argue the facts is an object of pity, as I see it.
There, is that plain enough so even you can understand it?
Yes indeed, bobby, -- I see that once again you've lost control.. -- And I bet your fans can see it too..