They have long ago decided. The opinions of our modern federal judiciary have nothing to do with what is the law, or what is sane and rational, they have to do with whatever their current preference happens to be, and they are wholly immersed in this vile modern culture.
As a commenter at "Instapundit" noted when the voters in California voted down "gay marriage", "Why don't we just save a lot of time and ask Justice Kennedy what he thinks?"
It is my opinion that they are going to impose a draconian policy of intolerance for people not willing to accommodate homosexuality. No one will be allowed to dissent because dissenting makes them "Untermenschen", and therefore unprotected by the law.
Indeed, they mean to come down on "intolerant people" with the full force and both jackboots of the law. Trying to ameliorate or avoid this confrontation is just naive.
BTW, do you know if Kipling was a Christian or a Muslim?
I would assume Kipling was a Christian but even if he were not, you can't demean wisdom just because it comes from an undesirable source. I think the old saying is "res ipsa loquitur".("It speaks for itself.")
I agree, seems our judges have crossed over to the wrong side and we are living under judicial tyranny for now. They ignore the Constitution and the will of the people, but tyranny only lasts as long as the people allow it.
I would assume Kipling was a Christian but even if he were not, you can't demean wisdom just because it comes from an undesirable source. I think the old saying is "res ipsa loquitur".("It speaks for itself.")
I agree sometime things do speak for themselves regardless of the source. I didn't mean to demean Kipling's wisdom. I was only checking as to how well you knew Kipling's religious preferences. It appears from most accounts he would not be pinned down and no one really knows for sure. But in some of his writings he did refer to the teachings of Allah and Islam as his preference at one time. Thanks for the reply.