[GeronL]

Judges have no power to impose gay marriage

They cannot make law

Overturning a “ban” does not mean the state has to recognize gay “marriage”

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

“Overturning a “ban” does not mean the state has to recognize gay “marriage””

And which state will do this?

[Oliviaforever]

“Overturning a “ban” does not mean the state has to recognize gay “marriage””

Obama would send in troops.

[daler]

I don't recognize it; never will.

And I'm not afraid to say so.

I wonder how long before the backlash begins with others as well.

[INVAR]

Overturning a “ban” does not mean the state has to recognize gay “marriage”

WRONG.

The day after a fed ruled KY's ban on homo marriage unconstitutional, another fed judge ruled that KY MUST recognize same sex marriages.

[Blood of Tyrants]

What would the judge do if Scott Walker refused to order the cities to issue marriage licenses?

[Cheerio]

1)Judges have no power to impose gay marriage 2) They cannot make law

1) Agreed they have no power to enforce anything.

2) In case you hadn't noticed during the past 6 years, the Article II branch has been exercising its nonexistent power to make laws, so I would guess the judicial branch is saying to itself "Hey the Constitution is kaput, we might as well get in on this lawless business of making laws also!!"

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Again, the pendulum swings.

Three ^CO-EQUAL^ branches of government mean that no single branch can be over-ruled. The courts can provide interpretation but should only be considered on the same level.

None of these levels supercede the will of the people. If the patriots of Wisconsin are smart, they should offer a referendum that thanks the court for it’s interpretation but will continue to govern under the will of the people in the previous referendum.

[Whats-wrong-with-the-truth]

"Judges have no power to impose gay marriage
They cannot make law"

I'm guessing you've never heard of Roe v Wade?