XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor   
   From: crwlrjeff@yahoo.com   
      
   "Josh Rosenbluth"  wrote in message   
   news:mnk357$gck$3@dont-email.me...   
   > On 7/8/2015 1:46 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:   
   >>   
   >> When a majority vote that marriage shall be between one man and one   
   >> woman, and do so as an amendment to the constitution, then that vote is   
   >> supreme to any law.   
   >   
   > It isn't supreme to the federal Constitution.   
      
      
   Now you are changing the subject.   
      
   Assume for a moment that there was an amendment to the US Constitution that   
   defined marriage as one man and one woman, that amendment would be supreme   
   to the court.   
      
   A state supreme court cannot, should not be able to, overturn a state   
   constitutional amendment. The amendment is the constitution. Marriage is a   
   states right issue, not a federal one.   
      
   I've already lost the argument due to a piss-poor decision of the supreme   
   court that bent to the will of populist demands, but the bigger issue here   
   is that the idea of states rights is dead.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)