Of course you did. You cited his view supporting same sex marriage. That is a political position.
Here is my statement again:
Without exception, Judges should always rule based upon the law as written, and not upon what they wish the law said. This guy is a judicial-fiat-loving liberal douchebag.
Nowhere in any of that did I cite his view supporting same-sex marriage. Nowhere. Your claim is false.
And cut me a break - I know darn well you have no problem with judges who "legislate from the bench" if they're "legislating" stuff you support.
Absolutely positively untrue. I have stressed this exact point countless times - Roe being a prime example. The court would have been just as wrong to prohibit states from legalizing abortion nationwide based solely upon fiat just as they were wrong to prohibit states from banning it. The ends do not justify the means. Ever. Again, it is something that separates you from me. Your claim is patently false.
Oh, bullspit. The judges I applaud are those that fairly apply the law to the facts.
You have an extensive posting history that proves otherwise.
Judges didn't create same sex marriage. The states freely chose to provide valuable benefits and protections to the contract of civil marriage.
My state didn't. Neither did California, or Virginia, or Kansas, or Utah, or North Dakota. In fact, a vast majority of the States set established laws on marriage that are completely impartial to sexual preference. Yet it was a judge that overruled what the vast majority of States had already decided. Again, your claim is patently false.
The Constitution says what it says, and its protections aren't limited just to folks like yourself.
The Constitution says that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. This means that States get to decide how to sanction marriage, and that people can decide their own relationships. Yet you believe that the marriage law of one State should be imposed on the rest, as long as you favor that law. But the reverse is never true in that if you don't favor the law of a particular State, then that law should not be imposed on anyone else. It is the exact opposite of equal protection, and is in itself a demonstration of contempt on the very Constitution you pretend to support.
Oh, you bore me with your virtue signaling. The Constitution supports my position
Really? Then why is it that every single time we have this conversation, you are unable to cite a single thing in the Constitution that supports your viewpoint? Heck, I would even be willing to concede the 'Equal protection' argument if you indeed supported equal protection. But you don't support it at all.
. . . and rejects your demand to impose your religious values.
Whoa, hold the phone! Who said anything about religion? I certainly didn't bring it up. So why did you? Religion has nothing to do with the tyranny of judicial fiat. And every time you bring it up, it shows that you don't have a legal leg to stand on.
You don't "side with the Constitution". The Constitution demands that the law afford EVERYONE its equal protection.
I ALWAYS side with the Constitution. I ALWAYS support equal protection. It is you that does not. Because it is YOU who supports judges who inject 'preference' into the equation where no such preference previously existed. And by doing so, you create a protected class while denying others their own preference. It is an egregious violation of equal protection.
Well, you quoted some politician who thinks he supports same sex marriage. Don't debate dishonestly.
Hearsay. I can quote many politicians who think that Donald Trump is a Conservative. That doesn't make him a Conservative. Besides, Bennett's opinion on same-sex marriage has nothing to do with anything I said. He could be in favor of beastiality, or vehemently oppose cohabitation, or he could be a card-carrying member of the KKK like Democrat appointee Hugo Black. But all that matters to me is whether or not he follows the Constitution of the United States of America or not. Which should explain to you why I don't give a rats ass about whether two people of the same gender get married to each other or not, regardless of sexual preference. And your contempt for the Constitution explains why each and every time you make this an argument about gay marriage and your religious bigotry.
Your particular preference isn't denied.
My particular preference is to be married to identical twins. And that preference certainly is denied. This has been pointed out to you multiple times. Yet you refuse to listen to what other say, instead receding into the bigotry of your own closed mind.
What pisses you off is that the government can't impose your religious values on others.
I don't want government imposing religious views on anyone. Not that that has anything at all to do with this conversation.
Separation of church and state, bub.
'Separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution, not that that has anything at all to do with the people of California choosing their own marriage laws.
Equal protection of the law, sir.
We had equal protection before. We no longer have it now that 'preference' has been added to the equation.
It's all there in the Constitution.
The fact that it actually is in the Constitution proves that you are an enemy of the Constitution. You demand that Vermont marriage law be imposed upon Californians, but balk at having California marriage law imposed upon Vermont. Nothing equal about that. You pick a side, and then applaud when your side is imposed against the will of others. There is a name for it. Tyranny.
What can't my neighbors marry in your special world?
Your neighbors can do whatever they please. No one is stopping them from getting married. Just don't demand the rest of the state of Pennsylvania to sanction it without a vote.