I agree - I didn't say I could support his rationale - I said I could understand it. If A=B, then B=A.
If one demands consistency, then one can appreciate what the judge based his opinion on. Two wrongs don't make a right, but he was consistent with an earlier "settled bit of case law".
I'll let God decide if the folks making these decisions are on the path to Hell - I'd rather pray for their Salvation than their burning in Hell.
I knew you didn’t support his conclusions, or his premises. That was obvious.
And I wasn’t referring to anyone’s eternal destination. That would be far above my pay grade. I was talking about the hell on earth that is inevitably brought about by those who ignore the laws of nature and nature’s God.
I should have been clearer on both points. My apologies.