Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
So far, our definition of marriage has only included as between a man and a woman. This court decision alters that distinction. I think such definitions are solely the province of legislatures and I agree with many that this is about as "activist" a decision as I've ever seen.
I have no problem with gay marriage. I'm 100% for it. I just don't like seeing judges doing what legislatures should be doing.
|
Judges have always done this throughout American history. Just read the Dred Scott case of 1857. A judge overturned the federal govts decision that slaves were free and citizens above the 36' 30 line in Missouri. The court ruled in fact that slaves were not free in this part of Missouri, and therefore could not sue. Only citizens are allowed to sue, not slaves. It was the federal court that overturned the federal legislature's as well as the ST Louis's court decision. How is THAT possible?
Hybrid Mode
