That will be enough, thankyou. I really do not appreciate having my head bitten off with profanity-laden replies by you every time I post something political that you do not agree with.
If you feel the need to go off on political rants, may I humbly suggest that you use your own LJ for that purpose?
Specifically, the Massachusetts Judicial Court ruled that two persons can get a marriage license, instead of "a man and a woman," which the law states. However, the law does not read "two persons." The judicial court can not rewrite law. By law, the judicial court does not have that power. Not only is what they've done illegal, it's also tyranny.
Umm.. the court did not 'rewrite' the law. They ruled that the current law is unconstitutional and gave the Massachusetts legislature a number of months to rewrite the law to say two persons. Making a ruling does not equal rewriting law.
As for your rant on the Defense of Marriage Act, that is irrelevant. The act just says that for federal purposes that marriage is between a man and a woman. The implementation and law of marriage is reserved for the states. The federal government cannot tell the states how to define marriage as current law stands. So the San Fransisco mayor is only violating a state law.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-29 04:11 am (UTC)If you feel the need to go off on political rants, may I humbly suggest that you use your own LJ for that purpose?
Thanks.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-29 05:43 pm (UTC)It was more the foul language that got to me.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-29 04:48 pm (UTC)Umm.. the court did not 'rewrite' the law. They ruled that the current law is unconstitutional and gave the Massachusetts legislature a number of months to rewrite the law to say two persons. Making a ruling does not equal rewriting law.
As for your rant on the Defense of Marriage Act, that is irrelevant. The act just says that for federal purposes that marriage is between a man and a woman. The implementation and law of marriage is reserved for the states. The federal government cannot tell the states how to define marriage as current law stands. So the San Fransisco mayor is only violating a state law.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-29 05:39 pm (UTC)Circulus in demonstrando. Thank you, please drive through.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-29 05:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-02-29 05:52 am (UTC)To draw an analogy, this would be like a black person being a senior member of the KKK. People would wanna know why.