"PLEASE PLEASE SOMEBODY EXPLAIN TO ME: How can someone who wants a constitutional amendment making only opposite-sex marriage legal take issue with judges who find that it is presently unconstitutional to ban same-sex people from marrying?"
----
It's like this: These Activist Extremist Judges are the Thieves of Democracy.
They are stealing the Right of the People to make reasonable law, by pretending that such reasonable laws are unreasonable, ie 'no rational basis'. Yet we have in this thread debated the rational basis of such laws, pro and con... THIS SHOULD BE WORKED OUT IN A DEMOCRATIC MANNER, AND LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY. But some groups like HRC and ACLU cant stand to let people decide, they were shut out last november 0 for 11, and so they turn to judges.
In order to stop a thief, you need a good dead-bolt.
The Federal Constitutional amendment is that dead-bolt,
it makes perfectly clear that the Judges who mis-state
the Constitution are wrong.
Some say the thief wont come and so we dont need the dead-bolt.
Others think it is too ugly to ruin the architecture of our constitution.
And still others are rooting for the thief, er, Judge, because they really are on the other side of the issue.
But frankly, I'd rather have the dead-bolt to make sure the thief doesnt steal our democracy than find later on it was too late.
There is no constradiction in knowing the Judges are wrong to engage in this activism AND supporting actions that would defeat such activism, whether real or merely potential.
Nobody is mentioning that there is no "love test" for marriage. A homosexual man who marriage a woman will not be asked if he "loves" her. He is free to marry her and give her insurance or obtain her insurance.
I am sure there are f*g h*gs out there who would welcome the opportunity. (is there a male equivalent of a f*g h*g?)
The only way this judge could come this this conclusion that even the lowest standard does not meet the liberal needs, would be to ingnore all common law and all common sense. This just just made it up. His logic would not pass muster on a first year law school exam.
A constitutional amendment appears that it will be the first step in fighting back the judges.