Let’s say that the Supreme Court decides that each state can decide for itself about gay marriage. So if Justices Kagan and Ginsburg performed gay marriages where it was decided to be legal, and I don’t know, then their actions may not be as bad as people think.
Regardless of PC, pro-gay interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s equal protections clause, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage. So it remains that the states are free to make 10th Amendment-protected laws which prohibit constitutionally unprotected gay marriage imo.
Nevertheless, I’m bracing myself to be disappointed by pro-gay activist, state sovereignty-ignoring justices concerning gay marriage.
Let’s say that your job as a judge is to be impartial. Should I as a citizen be concerned only with what they say or should I be concerned with what they do?