40 states have laws or constitutional amendments limiting marriage to one man and one woman. That comes out to 80% with several more in the process of doing so. But what do they know? Strategerist says there is not a consensus for an amendment to define marriage as that of one man and one woman.
#####Strategerist says there is not a consensus for an amendment to define marriage as that of one man and one woman.#####
It shows how much "liberal" judicial imperialism has turned our constitutional system upside down. Shouldn't those trying to change the law be the ones who have to build a consensus? In a sane world, that's how it would work. But in the upside down world of "liberal" judicial activism, no consensus is needed at all when the left decides it wants to change things. Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Harry Blackmun, or whomever, just snaps a finger and the law is declared changed. We're then told that those wanting to keep the law as it has been for the past 200 plus years are the ones who have to go out and build a consensus.
Did supporters a nationwide abortion-on-demand need a consensus to achieve their goal in 1973? Nope. They didn't even need a 51% majority. All they needed were Harry Blackmun and his Supreme Court allies. Consensus? The left don't need no stinkin' consensus! Instead, we were told that if pro-lifers wanted to put things back the way they were before Roe (i.e., the way they were from 1776 to 1973), then they would need to go out and build an overwhelming consensus to put things back the way they were.
That's how the gay "marriage" debate is now playing out. Do you ever hear anyone talking about how gay advocates will need to build a consensus, meaning overwhelming majority public support, to achieve their goals? You never hear that because it's tacitly assumed that they don't a consensus. Only conservatives need a consensus. All the gay "marriage" proponents need are a few appointed judges in the right place when the lawsuit is filed.
In other words, we need 85% public support, two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and three-fourths of the states to win. All they need is 16% public support and nine appointed judges.
The irony is delicious. The Founding Fathers meant for it to be extremely difficult to amend the Constitution. Instead, it's now extremely difficult to keep it the same. The Founding Fathers believed the Constitution should only be changed when three-fourths of the states agree to the change. We're about to have a "right to gay marriage" added to the Constitution by a few judges, contemporaneous with three-fourths of the states voting NOT to permit gay "marriage" (the flurry of recently enacted DOMAs).
James Madison is rolling in his grave.