That’s a good point. Even if the Supreme Court rules that homosexual marriage is totally up to the states and not a “federal so called 14th Amendment or civil rights issue” then there is still potential problems when it is left to the states at the state level.
For example even after the Supremes hypothetically specify it is a total state issue with no federal rights or federal involvement, a state judge might rule that a state statute only allowing marriage between a man and a woman is unconstitutional in accordance with their respective state constitution. That is why it is important for states to amend their actual constitutions to basically outlaw same sex marriage. That would make it almost impossible for any state judge or any state supreme court to overturn the same sex marriage ban as long as it is in the state constitution.
However, as insane as it sounds we are living in a day and age where activist judges might declare something in a constitution as “unconstitutional”.
Honestly, even if the Supremes clearly specify that homosexual marriage is specifically a state issue and not a federal issue-I still don’t think they would go any further on restricting the state judiciary. That is why I think it was smart for a lot of states to go ahead and put a ban on same sex marriage in their respective state constitution instead of making it just a general law that could be easily overturned by their respective state judiciary.
RE: That is why it is important for states to amend their actual constitutions to basically outlaw same sex marriage.
I direct you to the most recent example of judicial activism — FLORIDA.
In a 2008 election, 62 percent of Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
The Tallahassee federal judge threw out Florida’s CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT approved overwhelmingly by voters to same-sex marriage.
see here:
If a Federal judge can do it, why not ANY state judge?