[Harry Rex Vonner]

Hopefully Harry Rex will see this ^ and look it up, lol. In the meantime, I got two words for you, state sovereignty. If you truly want the federal government to force ideas such as same sex marriage on the American public, you don't understand freedom.

I am quite familiar with precedent. I have always been told that it allows courts to take the easy way out, from time to time, by going along with a previous decision rather than "plowing new ground". For example, why change a precedent set in A v B by old Judge Blackacre in 1950? If Judge Blackacre found in a certain way, it looks good to us so we affirm it. That is using precedent.

The long established precedent of local control a/k/a the Tenth Amendment a/k/a the States Rights Amendment is certainly embedded in our body of law. Thus, the precedent in regard to homosexual marriages still rests with the supporters of traditional marriage.

Marriage, like speed limits and state income tax rates, is strictly a Tenth Amendment issue to be decided individually by each of the fifty venues. And, if we are truly honest (a rarity in this day), regulation of abortion should be a Tenth Amendment issue as it was for the entire life of our nation prior to January 22, 1973.

Prior to Roe v Wade abortion was not illegal in this country as abortionists would like you to believe. Abortion was, like most other issues, decided from state to state. Several states, like California, had legalized abortions long prior to Roe v Wade.

Unlike the spinners, it never hurts to express the real truth from time to time.