I don't think these will work:

[GFR7]

and you being a constitutional scholar know that they are wrong

I have studied enough of philosophy and of jurisprudence to believe their interpretation falls short. States can decide the definition of marriage: And if they all do so in favor of same sex marriage, that is fine.

 

[musterion]

What's so horrible of supporting minimal government control and maximum liberty?

Because libertarians lean socially liberal, they're ultimately corrosive to the very liberty they profess to uphold (in favor of what amounts to license -- not the same thing), which in turn eventuates in increased government control to counteract the lawlessness that results. You simply can't see that no matter how it's explained, so I can't say anything more.

 

[The Barbarian]

Some GOP ideas vis a vis SCOTUS taking up Same Sex Marriage:

1. Oklahoma:

Bill Would Require All Marriage Licenses To Be Issued By Religious Clergy

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement...ligious_clergy

Hmm... I see a huge increase in the number of weird religions in Oklahoma.

2. Amendment: (Backed by Bobby Jindal):

Ted Cruz To Introduce Federal Amendment Prohibiting Judges From Overturning Gay Marriage Bans

Hmm... amending the Constitution by the back door. No, don't that one's gonna fly, either.

Jindal: I’d Back a Constitutional Amendment to Leave Marriage to the States

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...atrick-brennan

How about a Constitutional amendment to keep the government entirely out of it? What's evil for federal government is evil for state government. However, that one is at least legal, and if ratified, practical.

But since a slight majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, getting a two-thirds majority of the states to buy into it... not so likely.

I understand that these are just symbolic things, by a party too weak and too indifferent to effectively act on it, but still.

 

[kmoney]

It's apparently a reaction to what federal judges have been doing since the 2013 Windsor ruling. :idunno:

It still seems like an odd way to go about it. And in the link you provided Cruz even talks about states rights. So why not just do what Jindal is proposing and explicitly make it a states issue instead of restricting what judges can do? :idunno:

 

[Christian Liberty]

Because libertarians lean socially liberal, they're ultimately corrosive to the very liberty they profess to uphold (in favor of what amounts to license -- not the same thing), which in turn eventuates in increased government control to counteract the lawlessness that results. You simply can't see that no matter how it's explained, so I can't say anything more.

I'm not socially liberal. Not in the slightest.

 

[GFR7]

It still seems like an odd way to go about it. And in the link you provided Cruz even talks about states rights. So why not just do what Jindal is proposing and explicitly make it a states issue instead of restricting what judges can do? :idunno:

I think this is part of Cruz' idiosyncracy. He is kind of odd.

 

[kmoney]

I think this is part of Cruz' idiosyncracy. He is kind of odd.

:mock: Cruz

 

[GFR7]

:mock: Cruz

Isn't that his name? :think:

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Well #1 definitely is not going to work, as making clergy the authority on marriage when it's a governmental thing is clearly contradictory to Separation of Church and State.

I don't know how a politician could actually see that as plausible, to be honest.

#2, however, is actually pretty interesting- disallowing federal judges to make decisions on gay marriage.
It's sort of a backdoor to leaving such authority to states, but it surfaces, indirectly, the notion of checks and balances.

The federal courts are getting to comfortable slamming the hammer in things they ought not even be a part of.

 

[musterion]

I'm not socially liberal. Not in the slightest.

Too many of your fellow libertarians are.