See the URL for a very good discussion on this issue.
God honors those who honor Him.
I’d like to see this guy on the Supreme Court.
Where is the picture of the Kid from Rotterdam giving the salute?
Folks are finally beginning to realize that the Constitution is the law of the land, not the opinions of lawless judges.
And they’re waking up to the fact that the oath of office is to support and defend that Constitution, even if that means that they have to protect it from those same lawless judges.
Ping
As FReepers read the following comment about the referenced article, please bear in mind the following. There would probably be no concern how “loose-canon” pro-gay activist justices are going to decide the constitutionality of gay marriage if the ill-conceived 17th Amendment had never been ratified, state lawmakers foolishly giving up the voices of the state legislatures in Congress by doing so, particularly with respect to the Senate’s required approval of justices nominated by the president.
From the referenced article:
In 1972, the US Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court holding that a state’s man-woman marriage law was not unconstitutional. That decision, Baker v. Nelson, is binding on the lower courts, both federal and state, even though it was only a summary disposition. Many in the legal academy, and many lower federal courts, believe that the Supreme Court will itself not adhere to that decision when it rules later this year on the marriage cases from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee, because subsequent doctrinal developments have, in their view, undermined the precedential value of Baker [emphasis added].
Regarding the emphasized part of the last sentence above, will somebody please translate that legalese English into regular English? I regard it as nothing more than meaningless legal sophistry.
Also, note that the article made no mention of the following. The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify in general that the Constitution’s silence about issues like marriage means the following two things.
The states had reserved government power to regulate marriage uniquely to themselves, not to the federal government.
Gay marriage is not a constitutionally enumerated right.
So the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay marriage, as long as such laws don’t also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.