Well now, the illustrious judge of the high court has gone on record saying the ‘Constitution had foresight to include same-sex marriage,’ and she adds ‘they were wise writers.’ Really now?
I would ask her for proof , but she would call me a narrow-minded fool. Well Ma’am, no disrespect given, but the Constitution is not a dictionary, and it does not describe what time and common sense proves to be true: that marriage has been, is, and ever will be between a man and a woman.
She may try all the mental gymnastics in her bag of tricks, but good people do not buy the stale bill of goods. Ginsburg ‘oversees a marriage’ and pronounces man and woman, or is it man and man, woman and woman, wife and wife, or ‘I now pronounce you husband and husband?’ Ouch.
She needs this strange interpretation to justify her logic to approve a union which is impossible when held to the standard of absolutes.
What’s next your honour, a marriage held for a boy and his turtle, or a woman and a fish? Sounds absurd, and it most certainly is, but this is the road she is driving on, and this one way street has many travelers, all driving off the cliff with her.
Ginsburg is thought to be the female elite of the court, and her opinion sways, but I would point out, only they with agendas are convinced. The Constitution NOWHERE suggests same-sex marriage as the norm-of-the-day, and her insinuation is rather insulting.
The framers knew the context of male female, man woman, husband and wife, and some things in life hardly need explained. Ginsberg is an engineer seeking to fill the trains with passengers on its way to the island of misfits, but good intentions do not correct what is blatantly wrong.
And yes, she wants to drive this machine to a town near you. In spite of this lack of leadership, and these overt acts of mischievousness, may God bless America.