[Mr. Douglas]

At the end of the day, all our supreme court did was, via the force of law, change the meaning of the word “marriage”.

Don’t ask me how that was a constitutional issue, but they found a way to make it so. What a corrupt court.

[Alberta's Child]

I would actually agree with the contention that it was a legitimate constitutional issue as it was presented in that particular case. The issue at hand was as follows:

1. The Federal tax code has specific provisions that provide financial benefits/advantages to couples who are legally "married."

2. Marriage law comes under state statutes, not Federal law.

3. Some states recognize "gay marriage," but others do not.

4. Therefore, this is a matter for the Federal court system to address.

The problem with this case was that the court addressed this legal dilemma the wrong way. The provisions of the Federal tax code related to "married" people should have been declared unconstitutional. There actually would be a solid constitutional basis for such a decision, as opposed to the idiocy we saw where the Federal courts became the arbiters of state marriage laws.

[itsahoot]

At the end of the day, all our supreme court did was, via the force of law, change the meaning of the word “marriage”.

The same way they turned action, "Flag Burning" into speech.