Do you think judges should ignore what you agree it says with regard to Teri's case, and reinterpret it to interfere with her legal guardian's medical decision? That is implicit in your argument.
Do you think judges should ignore what the laws says with regard to the definition of marriage, and the law to allow homosexual "marriage?"
If you are in favor of the first example of legislating from the bench and opposed to the second, on what do you base your position aside from personal opinion that one outcome is "good" and the other "bad?"
Don't you think it would be preferable to oppose the passage of a law to burn, starve or shoot me than to allow it to pass and then expect a judge to override it?
Please change second paragraph in above post to:
Do you think judges should ignore what the law says with regard to the definition of marriage, and reinterpret the law to allow homosexual "marriage?"
Sorry.
That's just it. I don't agree at all.
I never remotely implied that I did either. So please refrain from putting words in my mouth. Thank you.
Oh yeah, and BTW, thank you for answering my original question. However inadvertantly.