no but you think it’s alright for any kind of marriage and as for unconstitutional to be found then I;m sure you are happy but where does it state you have a right to marry ?
Also in your world you would want anarchy right?
WHy mess with an institution which has been going for thousands of years unless you want to ruin it, oh wait rule 26 of the communist rules back in 1963, yes for those who want this sham of a marriage then all they are doing is the bidding of the radical communists like Ayers and others from the 60’s.
Also Govt has been in marriage since the founding fathers, it were judges sometimes who married others, yes one am and one woman, and don’t tell me that the founding fathers supported this feces sex and a sham either.
And some wonder why liberaltarians are called more radical than most liberals and then they got all upset when pointed out they are socialists with out taxes
As for CA, a constitutional amendment was done , same as NC and other states and yet activist judges like the homosexual one in CA said it was unconstitutional
My understanding of the Constitution might be flawed, but at best, it only lays out a few things the Fed. gov’t is allowed to do; the individual Citizen being whom holds Rights.
I’m so tired of the (L) = anarchy routine. Put it on the shelf w/ Roberts and the NSA black-mail, its tired and wore out. Never was it used nor brought up.
I’m all for not messing w/ the institution of marriage. Gov’t should have NO say/part; it’s a religious matter. Nor does gov’t have any say/part in the contract between other Citizens (civil unions).
I care not that gov’t has been in the process since the founding. They also owned slaves, had State sanctioned churches, etc. Most, if not all, original laws were quite racial in their start (to keep the races apart)
Socialist w/out taxes? Ah, to re-enable one the consequences of ones own actions; why, that’s positively ‘socialist’; why if gov’t were not there to tell them what/where to do.... /s