Replies

I think we at least need the threat of an amendment. The problem here is caused by liberal judges who ignore the will of the people and try to impose their beliefs on the general public.

Do I think the amendment will pass though: likely not. The last amendment imposing negative liberty was the Prohibition, and we all know how well that worked. However, we need to send a message across, and if an amendment or the threat of one will do the trick, so be it. Something needs to be done. We have to draw a line and protect the sanctity of marriage. Because if gay marriages are allowed, then we run into a slippery slope. Who is to say that a person can't marry their pet, their tree, their house, or even themselves? These justices are making a mockery of tradition and morality and a line must be drawn!

The problem here is caused by liberal judges who ignore the will of the people and try to impose their beliefs on the general public.

There must be a better solution. We can't keep playing whack-a-mole with activist judges every time they play legislator (oooh, picture that, 9th Circuit, all behind the bench, a foam rubber hammer...). We need a system in place that recognizes consistent efforts to legislate from the bench and removes those judges. But we still need to keep the judges from becoming succeptible to threats and undue influence from the other branches.