- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,969
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Location
- Dallas TEXAS
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Anytime one of the supporters of this "ruling" can show me anywhere in the Constitution where it addresses alternative lifestyles or sexual orientation feel free to quote it.
The sham of this ruling along with every other gay marriage ruling allowing it is the bastardization of the law. Only race has been decided on marriage cases and an Amendment against racial discrimination.
Homosexual marriage has no law to back it up, no Constitutional quote it can read from. That is the reality and why this is an activist judge ruling not one based in law. The very fact she used her own interpretation on what rational means shows she had no leg to stand on in the law and instead fabricated her ruling based on personal opinion not law.
The sham of this ruling along with every other gay marriage ruling allowing it is the bastardization of the law. Only race has been decided on marriage cases and an Amendment against racial discrimination.
Homosexual marriage has no law to back it up, no Constitutional quote it can read from. That is the reality and why this is an activist judge ruling not one based in law. The very fact she used her own interpretation on what rational means shows she had no leg to stand on in the law and instead fabricated her ruling based on personal opinion not law.
Last edited: