"And neither you nor 'most Americans' need to alter your opinion one whit, under this ruling or under any other that I would approve. If you don't approve of same-sex marriages, don't recognize them. Just don't make it legally impossible for anyone to recognize them."
If gay unions receive legal recognition, then everyone under that jurisdiction does in fact have to recognize them everytime they pay a tax into that jurisdiction.
But anyway, does that mean you support the judicial imposition of gay marriage/civil unions, or in other words, the forced societal recogntion of them by as few as 5 people acting w/o any regard for the original intent of the Constitution.
If gay unions receive legal recognition, then everyone under that jurisdiction does in fact have to recognize them everytime they pay a tax into that jurisdiction.
To the extent that taxes are used to provide marital benefits, yes. That's a problem, all right, but it's a problem common to all taxes; there's no way to make sure every dollar gets spent only on things that the specific individual who paid in that dollar would have approved.
But anyway, does that mean you support the judicial imposition of gay marriage/civil unions, or in other words, the forced societal recogntion of them by as few as 5 people acting w/o any regard for the original intent of the Constitution.
You mean, have I quit beating my wife yet ;-) ?
I believe that a principled 'judicial activism' in defense of liberty rights, practiced through the exercise of judicial review, is exactly what the relevant original intent of the Constitution was; I think the right of consenting adults to marry as they please is a right deserving of that sort of protection; and I don't think the exercise of judicial review, on this subject or any other,amounts to an 'imposition' of anything on anyone in any Constitutionally relevant sense. The courts don't demand that states recognize marriages at all -- just that if and so long as they do so, they do it within the Constitution.