We have federal court decisions banning street preaching on PUBLIC SIDEWALKS near abortion mills lest we might make the killers uncomfortable. Police brutality perpetrated against pro-lifers is law enforcement but a crime when perpetrated against the left.
You underestimate the evil that lurks in our Court system. I might not "need" a Corvette, but if I can afford one, I can buy one. I may not "need" a gun but likewise. Etc. Punishing judges is the greatest enjoyment I can imagine at tyhe expense of the enemies of our civilization. Whether I need it or not, I want it sooooooo much that I cannot put it in words adequately.
I will take, as a TEMPORARY expedient, the complete return of the abortion question to the political process of state legislation. Beyond that, nothing less than the end of legal abortion with the sole exception of situations of genuine IMMINENT PHYSICAL AND HIGHLY LIKELY threat to the life of the mother will do.
Colorado repealed by a legally authorized referendum a gay "rights" law that had been passed by legislative leftists. The Fedcourt slime intervened and overturned the referendum and restored rumprangers' "rights" on the claim that the FedConstitution required restoration. What would be next? Will some pair of Lavender Larries file suit against a state whose legislature has failed to enact such laws? Will some FedJudge then discover the federal "constitutional" "right" to have the legislation of their dreams enacted whether the legislators want to or not?
If you think that scenario unlikely, decades ago in Boston one FedJudge Garrity took control of the Boston School Sysytem to see to it that the system be wrecked by racial bussing schemes. When the School Board objected to his tactics (in Boston no less!), Garrity ordered each School Board Member to vote as he personally dictated in favor of his bussing scheme under penalty of individual contept of court findings and individual punishment. This was not overturned on appeal. Similar scenario in Kansas City when a FedJudicial tyrant ordered the appropriation of massive amounts of new funding (and specific luxuries previously undreamed of) for the gummint skewel system abandoned by whites after His Majesty ordered a massive bussing scheme.
Think as we will in any direction on those old bussing schemes or the racial attitudes involved, those judges ignored all boundaries and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that they will not be models for future judicial tyranny on other subjects. The Federal Judiciary and many state judiciaries are running amok.
In the real world, you are wrong on the F, F & Credit Clause. No one is following Madison on this in today's judiciary. DOMA will not suffice. The exception will disappear as soon as the elitist judges are asked to apply it to packer "rights".
On what grounds...1st Amendment of the US Constitution? The simple reponse to that is that the 1st Amendment (and all of the Bill of Rights) applies only to the federal government...and the 14th Amendment did not change that fact. I know...the SCOTUS has said, since 1925, that the 14th Amendment did incorporate (some of) the Bill of Rights...well, as you probably know, its a simple matter of historical fact that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment did not, and was never intended to, incorporate the BOR against the states. We have to continue to make that fact known to people, the states have to assert their proper authority and we need judges like Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court (as far as I know, he is the only Justice who notes that the incorporation doctrine is a fraiud and should be revisited
You underestimate the evil that lurks in our Court system
I really don't. But what I advocate is that the other branches and the states start to assert their authority. We know the judicial branch assigned itself the task of reviewing the constitutionality of state and federal laws. When the Supreme Court handed down its directive in the Lawrence case (the homosexuality case) in Texas a few years ago...deciding that, contrary to its ruling in 1986, the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution does, in fact, prohibit states from passing laws that violate some undefined (and undefinable except by the Court I guess) "right to privacy", the authorities in the state of Texas should have declared (1) that they would not enforce such a fictitous ruling (2) the US Constitution leaves the issue of the criminality of homosexuality in Texas to the government of the state of Texas and the state does not appreciate meddling by the federal government in such internal matters.
And then, the President should have declared that he also recognizes a patently bogus, illegitimate ruling and would not send the US Marshals or the Army or National Guard to compel Texas to obey. That would take real guts.
I don't want libertarian states and I do not want Biblically-based states. I want states that have and enforce laws consistent with the normal standards of Western Civilization such as those that prevailed when I was growing up in Connecticut in the 1950s
Why do you care? If you live in Illinois...why do you care whether or not Massachusetts recognizes gay marriage? If neither the governor nor the legislature of Massachusetts wants to rein in their courts...that's their issue
you are wrong on the F, F & Credit Clause
I don't think I'm wrong about the FF&C clause never having been applied to marriages...I know that different states have different age requirements, different standards on what constitutes incest-based prohibitions on marriage and states have, to my knowledge, never been required to recognize out-of-state marriages that did not meet their standards. Your state would be no more compelled to recognize a gay marriage license from Massachusetts than it is to recognize a concealed carry permit from Virginia. You may be right that DOMA will be undermined by a judge who won't restrain himself or herself...but, short of a Constitutional amendment on marriage, abortion and any other policy issue, what do you advocate?....so long as the states and other branches of the federal government passively just follow orders from the federal government, we will always be subject to some federal judge deciding he wants to see a "right" enacted or a law struck down