Regarding the second part of Mr. Duncan’s quote, I’ll remind you that there were religious leaders in the early 1800s who wrote books on the Biblical justification for slavery – later in that century, other religious leaders wrote books on why women shouldn’t have the vote. It goes on and on to show why the First Amendment – which forbids the establishment of a state-run religion AND protects religion from the state – separates the United States from governments that leverage religion to suit the implementation of their angry oppressions on people who do not share their views. Our country was not perfect when founded – when enslaved Black people counted for 3/5ths of a human being – and only then to send more representatives to congress for the enslavers – and when women were not given any rights whatsoever. These are things that have changed over time – and Mr. Duncan is disingenuous when he selectively forgets our nation’s progress and asserts that rights for LGBT people are somehow ones that “no one knew or would have believed were there.”

In short, you’re better off speaking for yourself when posting here, because I think that allowing others to do your talking is an indication that others doing your thinking as well. Other publications may let that go by passively, but it’s not going to happen here.

‎”The basic point to make about this decision is that it very effectively accomplishes one thing: It elevates the idea of judicial supremacy as the primary constitutional value. It is more important, the court is saying, to preserve the conceit that the courts can read into state and national constitutions rights that no one knew or would have believed were there than to allow voters to come to a different conclusion about the basic laws by which they will be governed.”