My Take on SCOTUS Ruling

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

That's completely disingenuous.

It's not a matter of legislating from the bench.  It's a matter of interpretation of the 14th Amendment. 

There have been a variety of interpretations of the 14th Amendment since it was ratified.  Some people said you could discriminate against black people as long as there was "separate but equal."  Some people said the 14th Amendment applied only to racial issues, other people said it applied to women too. 

I think the kernel at the heart of this ruling is that the government can't treat a group of people like homosexuals differently without a rational basis for discriminating.  In previous generations, that basis was the agreed upon idea that homosexuality was an immoral, sinful mental illness.  Some people still believe that and maybe you do.  But, the overwhelming consensus is that homosexuality is normal and healthy, it's just a natural sexual orientation and form of love. 

In court, the states with gay marriage bans never argued that homosexuality was evil or immoral.  They basically just hemmed and hawed the whole way from district court to the Supreme Court.  Their task was finding a rational basis for the law and they never produced one.  And, they lost.  That is the story of this case.  The consensus on the basic facts shifted and the argument was one by the same-sex marriage side.   

As for your bizarre opinion of the court's jurisdiction, that's also false.  The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear 14th Amendment challenges.  The 14th Amendment applies to the states and the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States.

The opinion did not focus on the equal protection clause and it did not make any claim about a lack of rational basis.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Were you equally outraged by the Citizens United ruling?

I have no problem with criticizing government and don't support the BCRA. We, as a citizenry, have the right to be critical of government and those that place themselves in the public light. We should not be limited by arbitrary days before an election to discontinue the discussion; fair or unfair and regardless of party. Hopefully the electorate will do its own research and make an informed decision when voting and not be persuaded by platitudes. Unlikely, but my opinion. Any limitations on free speech by either party or political persuasion should be immediately be shunned. For example, there is a plan by a group to burn an American flag by a protest group in New York shortly before the 4th of July. I served in the Nave shortly after our involvement in Vietnam. I disapprove and find the act abhorrent. That said, I support their right to exercise their free speech and their right to petition the government even if I disagree with their message.

In other words, you're OK with the SCOTUS overriding existing legislation and going against the will of an overwhelming majority of citizens when you agree with the decision, but you're against doing the same thing when you disagree with it. Thanks for clarifying.

Isn't that the approach most people take?   

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Were you equally outraged by the Citizens United ruling?

I have no problem with criticizing government and don't support the BCRA. We, as a citizenry, have the right to be critical of government and those that place themselves in the public light. We should not be limited by arbitrary days before an election to discontinue the discussion; fair or unfair and regardless of party. Hopefully the electorate will do its own research and make an informed decision when voting and not be persuaded by platitudes. Unlikely, but my opinion. Any limitations on free speech by either party or political persuasion should be immediately be shunned. For example, there is a plan by a group to burn an American flag by a protest group in New York shortly before the 4th of July. I served in the Nave shortly after our involvement in Vietnam. I disapprove and find the act abhorrent. That said, I support their right to exercise their free speech and their right to petition the government even if I disagree with their message.

In other words, you're OK with the SCOTUS overriding existing legislation and going against the will of an overwhelming majority of citizens when you agree with the decision, but you're against doing the same thing when you disagree with it. Thanks for clarifying.

Isn't that the approach most people take?   

I for one make an effort to separate my judgment on constitutional interpretation from my policy preferences, as the post above yours attempted to illustrate. I can understand that others take a more partisan approach to these matters, but then don't go whining "RIP Constitution " when you lose.

Ok. By saying "when you agree with the decision"  I didn't assume you just meant "agree with the policy." 

There's no contradiction here between agreeing with Citizens United and believing that the gay marriage decision overstepped its bounds, as the Constitution more explicitly deals with political speech than it does with the definition of marriage.  I think a good case can be made that Citizens United went too far in addressing questions not directly necessary for the resolution of the dispute before the Court, but that is different from criticizing the opinion on 10th amendment grounds.