Hey, it’s one state judge, and on a lower level. It’ll be appealed.
Another anti-Christian secular judge imposing his views over the majority. You would figure high-ranking judges would have learned the most basic principles of law - one of them being that judges interpret. Nowhere in the constitution does is say that marriage should be changed. Lord have mercy.
buffalo said:
He isn’t a high-ranking judge. Also, he was indeed interpreting. Interpreting wrongly IMO, but interpreting nonetheless.
Actually, nowhere in the Constitution is marriage even mentioned.
Isn’t it Lisa N. that points out that this kind of thinking means that she should be able to marry her infant nephew? There is not a basic human right to marry anyone you choose. There are certain limits set by society and religion, and they are completely rational. If you allow same-sex marriage, you have to allow many other perversions at the same time.
Marriage itself, however, is considered a basic human right.
Limits set by a religion are only enforceable in that religion. The state, for example, doesn’t have to consider marriage indissolvable just because Catholics believe that it is.
That’s something I haven’t heard. What perversions must one allow?
Exactly. There’s no “constitutional right” to marriage.
Yes. But, marriage is considered a right, not a state granted privilege.
Please link to the legal document declaring marriage as a “right”. I’m not saying that you are wrong, I just don’t know that I’ve ever heard that before…
Glad to oblige. U.S. Supreme Court Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Then they must have defined what marriage is, right?
I’m not sure if they did. I’ll have to re-read the entire decision if they included any definition…
Why, heck, you can’t tell people they have a right if you don’t define what the meaning of the word is, can ya?
