What if a totally RED state, like say Texas somehow found itself in the same predicament with an judge ruling away the will of the people on a social matter were to say, F-U Judge, and inform it's State employees that the ruling of the people is the law, and NOT that of the court. Ok, so the USSC would have to rule on this once and for all, and say they rule that States don't have a right to define marriage, and rule with gays, and then the state says screw you, you're misapplying the meaning of what citizens have a right to decide for themselves. So then what? What is the Federal government going to do about it? I ask in all seriousness because the Fed's can cut off any federal funding or they could use force (Doubtful), but using force would cause an outright rebellion from the other states. The point here is that these lower court rulings are emotional, and in my honest well educated opinion, are not based on the proper interpretations of the Constitution.
I've stated many times that, citizens have a right to decide for themselves, and as locally as possible what kind of community they want to live in. Mobility allows those that do not agree to reside elsewhere, and if your laws are so far out there, then no one will live there and the town, municipality, or State will go bankrupt, or be forced to change due to a lack of constituency. With all the in and outs of what the Founders wanted in a nation, this one thing rings true on every level. The founders wanted the states to be sovereign republics, and within the states themselves they wanted the localities to direct public policy. The thinking was, and still is that, if a locality is run properly, the locality will stand or fall based on its policies. The Federal government was only ever needed to regulate commerce between the states, protect our borders, have a standing army, and to conduct trade, and wage war. The Federal government by slowly but surely disproportionately taxing all US citizens has grown to a point where they buy the states compliance or punish if not complaint with its wishes. This to me, is wrong headed, and we deserve the government we have, but no one in their right mind would want a government that forces social policy on its citizens by judicial fiat.
For the record, DO NOT say that SSM is about equality. I disregard that philosophy. Homosexuality is a sexual fetish, no different than any other fetish. Heterosexuality is the baseline potential of all humans, and most animals, IMO, and however and whenever someone waivers from that, whether exclusively or partially doesn't change that assertion, IMO. If a heterosexual engages in anal sex, that is a fetish, if they engage in drinking someone else's urine, that is a fetish, if it's in wanting to have sex with a child, that is a fetish. Some fetishes have become socially acceptable while some others remain not so much, but make no mistake, when it comes to what is socially acceptable, the people should decide. No one wants to take away the homosexual fetish and of those that wish to practice it either exclusively, or on occasion, but lets all please stop pretending that homosexuality is on equal ground with heterosexuality, and therefore in my opinion not worthy of any claim to equal marriage rights.
Tim-
