- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I can't speak for everyone else, but I can't get worked up over a slippery slope argument that begins with the judiciary EXPANDING human rights (or privileges if you prefer) to an historically disfavored group.
I have a problem with anyone calling marriage a civil rights issue or infringing on anyone else's human rights. If it isn't defined in the Constitution, the Federal Courts should leave it alone. Any idea how many times the SC has ruled in favor of the states on states' rights issues? Saying that SSM is a human right or a civil right over and over again doesn't make it a civil or human right, it is a privilege