XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 7/3/2015 1:17 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:   
   >   
   > When LEGISLATION is judged against the constitution, the result is pass   
   > or fail. If pass, nothing else. If fail, then the legislation is   
   > reworked or abandonded. But when the voters of a state pass an amendment   
   > to the constitution, then that is a higher hurdle to knock down than   
   > mere legislation passed by a governing body.   
      
   When it comes to whether it is constitutional under the federal   
   constitution, it makes no difference how it was passed.  Ordinary   
   legislation and a state constitutional amendment have to overcome the   
   same hurdle.   
      
   > Everything in marriage is available through the legal system to gays.   
      
   That's not true.  For example, you can't collect spousal Social Security   
   benefits if you are not married.   
      
      
   > nothing says gays cannot marry, so they must be   
   > allowed to. More dumb is that anybody bought the argument, and now we   
   > have gay marriage.   
      
   Yes, that's a dumb argument.  But, The Court did not use that argument.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)