Actually this could be good for CA. This law has to be taken both ways. This would mean that the CA ban is Constitutional and can’t be overturned by the stupid homo judge.
“Actually this could be good for CA. This law has to be taken both ways. This would mean that the CA ban is Constitutional and can’t be overturned by the stupid homo judge.”
Yeah, doesn’t the CA judges decision not to release his ruling today, after the MA ruling, reflect interesting timing? I can’t help but wonder if he’s busy re-writing his entire opinion.
I’m always a little bit alarmed by the number of people who think the Federal government should have the power to micro-manage citizens’ lives. It’s there to provide a framework for the functioning of the nation and to provide our defense, with powers that are supposed to be severely limited otherwise. This is something most conservatives realize until one of their pet issues crops up, and they then decide the government SHOULD have the power to control everything people do.
This is undoubtedly a States Rights issue - sure, MA can endorse all the gay marriage it wants. That doesn’t mean it holds any water in Texas, which is as it should be. I’m not understanding how anyone who believes Arizona trumps the feds doesn’t believe that MA does as well. If someone believes the federal government should have the power to say gay marriage is illegal everywhere, does that person also believe they have the power to make it legal everywhere? Or does it, at that point only, become a States Rights issue for them?
Frankly, I’m of the belief that most of the federal government’s current powers were illegally and un-Constitutionally obtained. The more that’s done to reign the Legislative and Executive in, the better.