Supreme Court Promulgations Legislating From Bench

When the U.S. Supreme Court forced homosexual marriage upon 50 states it accentuated the negative traditional of judicial expansion of legislation from the bench. Encroaching upon the rights of legislatures to make laws, such court decisions make one wonder how the High Court can be prevented from corrupting the constitution any time it prefers when perverted, special wealthy interests that support corruption, godlessness and pervasive sin welcome it.

The right approach to decisions involving bodies of publicly legislated laws concerning civil affairs would be to affirm or deny the constitutionality of a law rather than to adulterate it. In the instance of marriage that was strictly created to support heterosexuals, the High court erred in loosening up the legislation to include homosexuals, lampposts and foreign nations in the abstract. The right course for the court to take if it found the marriage laws unconstitutional would have been to rule it such and strike marriage laws down and send the issue back to legislatures to work on to create new structures that would pass the court's criteria of constitutionality. It was completely wrong for the court to expand and change the legislative history of marriage.

There are innumerable configurations for creating laws to manufacture binding human dyadic, triadic or open group relationships that might be promulgated as law by state legislatures. It is entirely corrupt and mistaken however for the U.S. Supreme Court to expand laws to whatever group it like and rewrite legislation.

perhaps the decision does not require that states support homosexual marriage. Instead states must permit homosexual marriage if states support heterosexual marriage. If state legislatures vote to stop supporting all marriage, the High Court could not require that they do. In fact states that do not support marriage may have no need to recognize homosexual marriage from other states that do. Legislatures with a moral nature may need to research and support new forms of bonding that do not resemble the present marriage institution recently broken by Federal law.

Laws made by legislatures can rightly be struck down as unconstitutional by the High Court. The High Court though should not rewrite and pass laws forward into law themselves that would otherwise be unconstitutional.

If there is a law, for example, that sales of marijuana to minors is illegal and the court decides the law is unconstitutional, it should not go ahead and legalize marijuana sales to minors. Instead the court should limit itself to striking down the law, and let states decide for themselves new criteria for marijuana sales to anyone including minors. There may be other laws regarding minors that would make such sales illegal that the court's assertive stance would conflict with. It is remarkable that the Court issued such a decision about marriage instead of simply finding that the institution as it was could not pass constitutional correctness and need be vacated unto new law is written.

The U.S. Supreme Court should not act as if it had not only a line item veto, but that it had a line insertion privilege to rewrite the laws of the United States. Though President Obama was just given fast track authority to write his own treaties that cannot be changed even a little by Congress but is subject to just a nod the head yes or be exiled to Siberia vote, the U.S. Supreme Court was not just given the right to insert its own phrasing and restructuring, creative writing and wishes that make the very rich martinets of the government pleased as dominatrices with smoke blown up their asses.

It is wrong for the High Court to radically redistribute rights, responsibilities and historically highly valued institutional works willy-nilly sending a wave of chaos and corruption through the nation. A decision to vacate marriage and hold in abeyance new marriages until new laws could be passed in legislatures would have been rational. If legislatures choose to continue to support marriages of sin and provide the same benefits to members of the same sex as were formerly provided to heterosexual marriages that is their right. I am skeptical that in this era of government financial corruption that many would wish to liberally allocate benefits to anyone except mothers with dependent children regardless of marital status.