Home
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9jXYOH2c0
these new ‘rights’ were constructed in a way that sets a very dangerous precedent—that the federal government is able to dictate non-constitutional law to the States.
.......This relates to State-level same-sex marriage laws in that they are rights not defined within the Constitution, therefore reserved by the individual States themselves to interpret. Judge Scalia, one of the 4 dissenting Justices of the Supreme Court, had this to say:
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.
........... This ruling is not an expansion of rights but, rather, the establishment of a legal precedent by which States’ Rights can be nullified by the Federal Government. Don’t be fooled by the media coverage of the celebrations of civil rights advancement, we should all be mourning the fact that our government has allowed 5 individuals to dictate a national law meant to supersede State’s Rights.
these new ‘rights’ were constructed in a way that sets a very dangerous precedent—that the federal government is able to dictate non-constitutional law to the States.
.......This relates to State-level same-sex marriage laws in that they are rights not defined within the Constitution, therefore reserved by the individual States themselves to interpret. Judge Scalia, one of the 4 dissenting Justices of the Supreme Court, had this to say:
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.
........... This ruling is not an expansion of rights but, rather, the establishment of a legal precedent by which States’ Rights can be nullified by the Federal Government. Don’t be fooled by the media coverage of the celebrations of civil rights advancement, we should all be mourning the fact that our government has allowed 5 individuals to dictate a national law meant to supersede State’s Rights.
