"Justices Question Redefining Millennia-Old Institution of Marriage"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
First, note that the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional approach to deciding the constitutionality of gay marriage is a 17th Amendment-related problem. In other words, if the 17th Amendment had not been ratified then there would probably be all different faces on the Supreme Court at this time. And if such was the case then the Supreme Court would likely consist of God-fearing justices who would probably share the family values of the senators who confirmed them, senators likewise sharing the family values of the state lawmakers who elected them. And patriots wouldn’t be concerned about pro-gay activist justices looking for an excuse to legislate the so-called “right” to gay marriage from the bench.
Regarding redefining marriage, since when did the Constitution give the Supreme Court the power to define marriage? In fact, the Founding States had made made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that marriage is uniquely a state power issue. And since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage, the states are free to make marriage laws which discriminate on the basis of sex, prohibiting gay marriage an example of this.
Getting back to the 17th Amendment, that amendment needs to disappear.
AND, as some famous person once said, “how many divisions does the Supreme Court have?”