Bermuda becomes world's first country to repeal same-sex marriage legislation The British government said it was "disappointed" with Bermuda on Thursday after it revoked same-sex marriage rights for its citizens, but said it was not appropriate to block the move. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...sessame-sex-marriage-legislation-world-first/
As well as who? The constitution of the US precludes banning same sex couples from marriage, via the 14th amendment. So the US had it imposed by the constitution. Unless you also feel the individuals right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with militia service was also imposed via judicial fiat?
Yes I do owning a private firearm is fine if tied to being a male aged seventeen to forty-five which under the Militia Law is the gender and age range to serve in the Militia when Congress orders the Militia to be called for duty. All other firearms should be at the discretion of the government to possess. The Courts acted though to add in the right to general private gun ownership.
Unfortunately, your opinion is irrelevant. It’s settled US law, as spelled out in the constitution, which the Supreme Court affirmed.
Why so angry? I'm not threatening your marriage nor is a Bermuda style democratic backlash likely in the US. Gay marriage is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. As to your question, your premise is absurd. The 14th Amendment neither explicitly or implicitly demands gay marriage. If that were so, it would have been instituted when the amendment was ratified. It's just an excuse for courts to enact their personal policy preferences.
Uh, I’m not angry. I was curious who you thought had same se marriage imposed via judicial fiat. Because it certainly wasn’t the US. It’s simple constitutional law. The 14th is perfectly clear. Can’t discriminate based on gender, race, religion etc. so, banning 2 people of the same gender, is just as illegal as banning a black man from marrying a white woman.
So the Courts did create parts of the law involving firearms over a very literal reading of the 2nd Amendment tying the right to arms to militias as decided by Congressional Law, so was Judicial Fiat.
Yes it is here is the Amendment ... A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Its directly tied to a well regulated Militia the nature of Militias did change since we have a standing army, formal military militias such as the National Guard and no the Unorganized Militia all defined by the Militia Law the right of the people to keep and bear arms is tied to Congressional authority on them deciding Militia laws. I'm not opposed to people having a firearm privately but its largely at the discretion of the government. But you have the right to bear and own arms to serve in the duties of the Militia.