32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
I understand what you are saying about South Carolina but it is wishful thinking. Whether you like it or not, state constitutions can not over-rule federal constitution. A federal judge's constitutional ruling can only be appealed within the federal system and when it goes to a circuit court but the SCOTUS doesn't accept an appeal, the circuit court's decision stands and it over-rules anything the state level can do.
You don't like it? Get enough votes and change the federal constitution and the legal provisions of the unions of the states under a federation, or move to another country that does it to your liking. But until it happens, sorry, but this is how the law operates. Our states are *not* autonomous. They don't *get* to say "f.... you" and to do as they please. It's illegal and unconstitutional to do so.
It's funny how conservatives pretend to defend the US Constitution but anytime some ruling goes against their views, they immediately call for ignoring/disobeying the rule. You call yourself independent so what I'm saying maybe doesn't apply to you, but it's common to see this attitude among conservatives.
Another example - you say the SCOTUS owes your state something, etc. Well, even when the SCOTUS rules, some people still won't accept it, so I'm sure it would have been the same if they had taken up SSM. in the case of the Affordable Care Act the SCOTUS did take the matter up but ruled against the conservatives' views and considered the law constitutional. Conservatives everywhere continue to cry out loud calling it unconstitutional. Sorry, but the SCOTUS is the guardian of the constitution and if it says something is constitutional, then it is, until maybe a future ruling changes it. There is nobody higher than the SCOTUS to appeal to, so, there is no way to still challenge a decision, once it is delivered.
Also, what needs to be understood is that what the SCOTUS did *is* a ruling of sorts. They signaled that they wouldn't take up an appeal, which is a way to say that they agree with the interpretation of the circuit courts (that is, that banning SSM is unconstitutional) therefore see no reason to take up the appeal.
I think they will only take it up if the 6th circuit rules against SSM. So far all circuit courts have rule homogeneously so the SCOTUS saw no reason to interfere. If there is discrepancy between the circuit courts then they might step in.
But opponents of SSM shouldn't get any relief from this. Obviously, given the SCOTUS majoritary decision to not take up the appeals, it is clear that the majority of the SCOTUS does believe that SSM bans are unconstitutional, so, if they ever take up the matter, that's how they will rule, and then it will affect all 50 states. So, conservatives should fear this. It would put an end to any attempts to stop SSM, *nationwide*, all 50 states.
Its just and expression we use here my left wing friend..............Lighten up.Originally Posted by notquiteright;1063853813[B
"God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."
"God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
-C G Jung