To: lugsoul
Ah, so now you are backtracking.
No I am not.
It doesn't merely limit judges, right?
It primarily limits judges, and activist judges are the target of the amendment. But if marriage consist of one man and one woman, then that limits everybody from trying to make it include two men.
It would prevent a legislature - or even the population of a state - from amending their own state constitution to grant the legal benefits of marriage to gay couples - wouldn't it?
Yes it would. So what. Would it prevent a state from passing legislation (sub-constitutional legislation) recognising gay-partnerships?
377 posted on
07/12/2004 2:32:22 PM PDT by
tjwmason
(Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
To: tjwmason
No. It wouldn't. And what is the point of limiting it to sub-constitutional state legislation?
386 posted on
07/12/2004 2:36:39 PM PDT by
lugsoul
(Until at last I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin on the mountainside.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson