The SC isn’t the enforcement mechanism. The federal gov is the enforcement mechanism.

I’m well aware of his admission of guilt for 2008 and I didn’t refer to him voting for Hussein twice.

As I wrote here:

Turley believes that the proper way to have done it was under the 14th amendment equal protection clause. I don’t agree with him; as I’ve said several times, I think the proper route was through state legislatures and state referendums. But whether I agree with his approved way of doing it or not, the question I was answering, and the point I was making, was simply that although Turley agrees with the end result of same-sex marriage, he disapproves of the method in Obergefell and warns that it sets a dangerous precedent. In this I was responding to ConceptJunkie, who had written the following in a comment:

“I would be amazed to see anyone who says, “I agree with this outcome, but don’t like how it was accomplished”. It seems that every single person celebrating this outcome (which completely justifies the means, as is always the case for leftists) will absolutely refuse to see anything wrong with the situation until the power of judges to literally redefine the language to suit their politics completely destroys something they hold dear, and perhaps not even then.”

That is the only reason I referenced Turley. I don’t happen to agree with Turley’s reasoning, but he is an example of exactly what ConceptJunkie would be amazed at.

I will add that I also agree with you that finding the right under the equal protection clause would have been a dangerous expansion of the Constitution as well, but that I don’t consider it as global or dangerous as finding the right under due process, which is what the Court actually did and what Turley is criticizing.

The redefinition of marriage should, in my opinion, need to be accomplished by law, not by judicial fiat, because again, if marriage can be redefined in this way, anything else can be, and no doubt will be to suit a particular agenda.

I don’t imagine this “right to dignity” would ever include the idea that you shouldn’t be economically destroyed for keeping with your religious convictions. Violating political correctness means that your dignity will be the first thing thrown out.

I don’t imagine this “right to dignity” will prevent anyone from being forcefully starved to death if they are in a position where they cannot defend themselves. Of course, I guess Mr. Schiavo has the right to dignity of being married to a woman who isn’t a vegetable. I guess that would be the legal argument.

We have two fundamental problems here:

First, the United States Constitution is being reinterpreted in a way that soon will make it, if it hasn’t happened already (which I think is now arguable), incompatible with Christianity.

Second, our freedom of religion, a concept which I support, is also going to be subverted to allow for activities, behaviors and even laws which are fundamentally incompatible with our way of life. In other words, the U.S. is eventually going to start sliding down the slippery slope of acknowledging sharia law just as parts of Europe are doing. And before even the militant Muslims* start bullying us

* It’s important to include a qualifier such as “militant” or “extreme” because there are millions of Muslims living in the U.S. now who are able and willing to live in a way that is compatible with the U.S. way of life, which can be (over) simplified to “Live and let live.” I still have an appreciation for this in an era where many Western countries are facing regular civil unrest and other upheavals… however, since there is a tacit alliance between the Left and the Muslim Extremists, the issue is going to be relentlessly pushed and agitated and massaged as yet another front on the attack on the American way of life, something in which I imagine the vast majority of American Muslims have no interest.

It appears that we, as a society, are still going to keep picking and poking and dismantling things until the whole system crashes before enough people will start to realize what we’ve been doing.

Of course, we don’t need to be victims to anything the Supreme Court declares. They only have jurisdiction on any case at the pleasure of Congress, but of course Congress has become the doormat of the U.S. government. I guess they don’t believe in the Constitution any more either because they have been unwilling to exercise so many of their rightful powers as well.

Many libertarians are tools of leftists. Turley has been, by voting for Obama—in 2008, not in 2012.

I think he’s become alarmed by Obama. He’s certainly spoken out against his overreach many, many times.

What they won’t be forgiven for, what wasn’t their right, was to sell off the self determination of the future generations of America.

That alone, they will be destroyed in retaliation for, if nothing else.

Many libertarians are tools of Leftists. Turley’s own vote condemns him as one even.

Turley believes that the proper way to have done it was under the 14th amendment equal protection clause. I don’t agree with him; as I’ve said several times, I think the proper route was through state legislatures and state referendums. But whether I agree with his approved way of doing it or not, the question I was answering, and the point I was making, was simply that although Turley agrees with the end result of same-sex marriage, he disapproves of the method in Obergefell and warns that it sets a dangerous precedent. In this I was responding to ConceptJunkie, who had written the following in a comment:

I would be amazed to see anyone who says, “I agree with this outcome, but don’t like how it was accomplished”. It seems that every single person celebrating this outcome (which completely justifies the means, as is always the case for leftists) will absolutely refuse to see anything wrong with the situation until the power of judges to literally redefine the language to suit their politics completely destroys something they hold dear, and perhaps not even then.

That is the only reason I referenced Turley. I don’t happen to agree with Turley’s reasoning, but he is an example of exactly what ConceptJunkie would be amazed at.

I think he is just referencing what he sees as historical discrimination against gay people (criminalization of their customary voluntary sexual behavior, for example).

Turley is pretty easy to place, as he is basically a libertarian.