Is that not what we want the judges to do?
Article VI
2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE to the contrary notwithstanding.
Lawrence v. Texas has established that "gayness" is a right "retained by the people," as enumerated in Amendment IX.
A "federal" constitutional amendment is going to be needed to accomplish your goal of banning gay marriage.
Why wouldn't a "conservative," who believes in the principle of limited, delegated power given from the people to a government, not support that principle by insisting our government has no constitutional, enumerated power to interfere in the sexual preference or partnership decisions of fellow citizens.
Most "conservatives" would support the proposition that the decision to be a homosexual, as well as heterosexual, is in fact a decision, not genetic.
With that being the case, why is a human not free to choose their sexual preference without negative consequences from their, limited power government?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Boy are you off base.
The Lawrence decision determined that a state cannot criminalize sodomy. That's all - it didn't create some federal right to be homosexual.
You're just as bad of a nutcase as these judges if you believe same sex marriage is now protected, based on Lawrence.
If a state wants to define marriage as between one man and one woman, there is no Constitutional prohibition against doing so. There's gonna be an absolute uproar in Nebraska over this turd's ruling.
Because there is no such thing as a "gay marriage". Marriage is between a man and a woman. I think that the "civil union" thing is probably roughly ok, but take all the special talk out of it. Anybody can enter into a limited partnership or a general partnership with anyone else. Use this as the framework if they want to assign rights to each other. Do not let these a-holes destroy the concept of marriage. For if the states are forced to allow these so-called marriages, then marriage has no meaning and needs to be obliterated from society. Then the faggots have acheived their true objective.
Its only 'correct Constitutionally' if one adheres to the absurd 'living document' theory and believes that Judges have the legitimate authority to read into the Constitution things that clearly aren't there.
Not one part of the Constitution was ever ratified with the intent that it be used by the Left as it does today. To take provisions of the Constitution and extend and apply them to things for which they were never envisioned or intended by its framers or the nation that ratified them is to extend to the Courts a power they were never intended to have, and is to guarantee victory for the Left in the Culture War.
To take the 14th Amendment and use it to create a right to gay marriage is to violate the principle of having the consent of the governed because, again, the people have never given consent to such nonsense. The nation that ratified the 14th knew who and what it applied to, and it wasn't gay marriage. It is for judges to respect that original intent, and leave such matters to the people to decide as the 10th Amendment says.