„Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges.“ (taken from In Acceptance Speech)
I may be misunderstanding the US legal system, but aren’t judges, by virtue of their profession, passive in the sense that they only rule on cases that are brought before them via a fairly strict process? In the sense that case has to be made, somebody has to bring it before them – involving lawyers and other personnel? So how then, can they be ‚activist?‘ And is it not their job to decide solely based on the then-current law? So then, can they not only allow same-sex marriages if there is a law that allows for it?
I admit that I don’t even understand the underlying preoccupation with homosexuality. Frankly, I don’t understand why heterosexual couples should have more rights than homosexual ones, and I don’t understand how second-class relationships can go together with „All men are created equal.“ But then, I’m openly liberal.
But this kind of rhetoric really knocks my socks off.
Schreibe einen Kommentar