SCOTUS.
Ping
Nullify. There is no reason why the state shouldn’t just ignore the Supreme Court ruling.
So if another state rules that homos are possessed by demons, we are all just supposed to accept it?
(Makes as much sense as claiming men are women and vice versa.)
Very sick when our “Just Laws” promote such evil vile behaviors which deny the Natural Right of children to have their biological mother and father. Anything that undermines the Natural Duty inherent in ALL Natural Rights are unjust and evil “laws”. There is no “natural right” to deny a child their biological parent-—it is dehumanization and vile “law” which is always unconstitutional.
It is dehumanization and selling of babies for a perverted, irrational warped Reality-—so they can never embed Common Sense and will always have a unnatural warped understanding of human interactions and fundament sexual identity confusion-—much like the harem boys in Afghanistan. They will permanently have a unnatural, irrational, feeling toward males because of this evil satanic decision.
This promotion of vice and unnatural dehumanizing “sexual” acts is the promotion of Satanism (an unconstitutional promotion of a evil religion of dehumanization.).
All Just Laws have to promote “public virtue” in the USA-—and laws that promote the vile unnatural acts of homosexuals are abominations. Our Laws are based on Natural Laws and God’s Laws-—not irrational vice and sick perversions of nature.
As CS Lewis wrote in “That Hideous Strength,” “the poison has spat itself everywhere now.”
“...state courts must recognize legitimate rulings by courts in other states.”
Good to know that I can open carry in Downtown Manhattan, now.
The only one I trust on that court any more is Clarence Thomas. If he voted for this, then there must be some underlying Constitutional or legal-framework issue that, if ruled against, would destroy the system. It just turns out there are lesbians and kids in this case, is all. Thomas wouldn’t endorse that, but he would stay true to the legal system we have.
I need to chew on this. It sure sounds like judicial activism. On its face, the restraints on the court are not boundaries within which they can write laws. Those are the types of constraints legislatures feel. The court's job is to resolve conflicts between parties.. whether those conflicts exist between people or existing laws. As I read this, the court decided the direction they wanted to go in setting a brand new precedent (law?) and there was no existing law in place... so they filled the void.
That isn't the job of the courts!