I fully agree. The court had zero constitutional authority to hand down this ruling. I was just expounding on some of the other arguments involved.
But my point is, when we object to a court ruling of this nature with arguments properly directed to the lawmaker(s), we are acknowledging and accepting the court as lawgiver. IT IS NOT.
Not only that, there are people who are soft on the merits who can be brought along by the usurpation argument.
Not everyone who is anti-usurpation, not everyone who cares about the Constitution, cares about gay bowel syndrome.