When you find an extra tough, virulent, deadly bacteria, don't let the damn thing get loose!
It would be great if that were true, but it probably isn't in the long run. Children don't have to consent to lots of things that happen to them now. There are other societies that have or have had child brides, so there are obviously social mechanisms to enable that. With diversity and immigration policies brining in more and more people from those societies I wouldn't be surprised if they considerably outnumber the gay population now. That is before you even consider traditional pedophiles. Over time advocates for minor-adult sex will have more political power. Speaking of political power, I hear there is a former Speaker of the House paying millions in hush money over sex with a minor decades ago. Besides, there are 50 years of prep coming to enable it, academicians working on normalizing minor-adult sex now, just as there were people doing that for homosexuality decades ago. In some parts of society, such as Hollywood, powerful people are known as child abusers, and nothing is said. Fifty years ago homosexual marriage couldn't happen. Today child marriage "can't happen," but that isn't likely to remain true as things stand. Standards were destroyed to enable homosexual marriage, they won't magically reappear when needed to stop child marriages.
Hardly activism to support the equal protection clause.
It's activism if you are distorting the meaning and intent of the amendment to reach a desired end by illegitimate means, by intellectually dishonest means.
The Supreme Court did something similar regarding the understanding of the amendment intended to define slaves as full citizens of the US. They stretched that so that anyone born inside the US now is automatically a citizen, even today, so the US is practically unable to control its citizenship that unlike (IIRC) pretty much every other country. Congress's intent was clear, but that didn't stop them.
All forms of group marriage should be legal as well, as should time limited marriages and any other variants people want to come up with. The governments only legitimate role in marriage is as the enforcer of contracts.
So are you in for child brides too? There are people in the US that want that. Actually we'll probably end up fighting that battle in 50 years or less.
Speaking of bull
You should try rereading it, perhaps slower. Maybe then you will catch the rebuke he is giving to other members of the court.
it's a process of refinement to get closer to the original intent: maximization of freedom
The phase you are looking for is Liberty, which had a constraints to it. The US is heading further along the road of license, something abhorred by the Founders. You should really look into the distinction.
But right now we have a serious dearth of serious contenders on the right.
The problem is a lack of serious commentary about the right, not a lack of serious contenders. Pretty much any of the many governors running would be a better overall choice than either Clinton or Sanders. Some of them would be far better.
You might want to read some history.
The states have a poor record on the subject of minority rights. Such as slavery. And segregation. And so forth.
Might I suggest the same to you? The Federal government hasn't exactly always been a shining light itself. How many states waged Indian Wars? Any thoughts about the existence of black regiments in the Army? There may be a few more examples....
You need to read about Westboro Baptist Church. They've already proven the you are wrong. And they did it at the Supreme Court.
I'm pretty sure that 10-20 people doesn't constitute a meaningful portion of the religious experience of the US. And not all government officials are all sweetness and light in their treatment of members of America's religious communities.
There isn't much Christian in "Christian" Identity.
it is clear that people of faith and their beliefs should not be hindered in the public square.
Exactly, if religious extremists want to use our public squares to behead the infidels, we should not be allowed to stop them
I think you've just demonstrated the wisdom in this quote:
I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University. - William F. Buckley, Jr.
The court isn't telling all 50 states what to do.
It's telling them what to STOP doing, which is stop banning gay marriage and unjustly and unconstitutionally violating the rights of a segment of the populace.
Actually the court is telling all 50 states what to do. The states laws generally defined marriage as between a man and a woman. To the extent that there were actual bans it was in essence a clarification of policy or defensive measures. That is pretty simple to understand. But in this case the court is telling the states that they have to expand the definition to include other possibilities than just a man and woman.
And the democratic process angle is bogus, besides being essentially the same argument the South eventually went to war over.
Civil rights and freedoms cannot be left to popular vote. If we did that, the histories of slavery, jim crow, and interracial marriage would have been a lot different...specifically longer lasting.
Slavery was ended by amending the US Constitution. That was done by votes, not decree. Jim Crow and the associated nonsense was ended by a combination of laws passed by Congress (with Republican support against the Democrats running the segregated South), court decisions, and executive actions such as the use of the Army to enforce court orders or policy by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy.
I am worried about what this will do to domestic partnerships. There are a lot of people under the insurance and other things of their domestic partners. Does this mean forced marriage?
I believe that is already happening at the Federal level. I seem to recall reading that the policy for the military is you have to be married if you want benefits for the "significant other" if you are from a state that allows it. I doubt all of the activists will be pleased.
Power of Attorney.
States regularly treat citizens differently based on a host of factors. The real question is what are the acceptable grounds and degrees for that treatment. In some areas there is wider latitude than others.
Perhaps the failure here isn't Scalia's, but others in the court, and yours? This decisions over the last two days may someday be regarded a the "Dred Scott" decisions of this era.
Have you ever considered taking in a wider range of views?