>>520868986
Copied this from the other thread, but basically:
Obergefell v Hodges was an overreach to begin with, nobody can debate the logic used to expand rights in its decision without resorting to 'well its what I think people deserve'. Based upon another 14th Amendment expansion of the phrase, "nor shall any state... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", the majority opinion itself is drawn from silly snowballing, saying marriage is a right based in autonomy, and because so, it applies to gay couples, and because so, it offers and is essential to the protected rights of childrearing and education, and finally, to restrict all that constitutes unnecessary harm for no justifiable reason.
Which is all silly, the government doesn't owe you a marriage, childrearing from same sex couples has been dubious, and nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment really translates an infringement of rights into an expansion of privileges. It was basically Democrats writing a law above reproach that could not be passed or overturned in Congress. It was one of the landmark cases highlighting the emergence of lawfare to bypass the inefficiencies of the legislature and the expansion of the executive. It woke a lot of people up to the concept of activist judges.
When it first came about, I wanted it to be overturned in favor of an actual appropriate legislative change. Now I want it overturned with no appeal so Democrats suffer for all the BS they've done abusing the courts