SecretMethod70

The 10 commandments weren't listed in his office, they were in a public area of the courtroom, which gives undue treatment to one religion over others in a government building. While it doesn't necessarily violate the letter of the First Amendment, it does violate its spirit. Furthermore, it serves no purpose whatsoever other than to promote the 10 commandments and the Abrahamic religions they are a part of. Such a display does not celebrate the roots of the American justice system, because America is not, and never was, a Christian nation, and the fact many people then and now agree that it is wrong to murder or steal does not mean that those thoughts were inspired by the 10 commandments.

So, now that I've answered that, will you finally answer whether or not you think it is OK for the voters of a state to decide to outlaw interracial marriage? If you don't think that's OK, will you explain why it is OK for the federal government to impose itself on the states with regards to interracial marriage but not with regards to same-sex marriage, since neither is protected under the US constitution?

Also, you say it's better at the state level because voters voted. I assume you're talking about a ballot initiative. Are you only OK with laws passed by ballot initiatives? If the Ohio smoking ban were not a ballot initiative but, instead, a law passed by the state legislature, would it somehow be less valid in your eyes, despite the state legislature being elected representatives of the people? If it would be equally valid, why is it more OK for the state legislature to pass laws as elected representatives of the people than it is for the federal legislature to pass laws as elected representatives of the people? If it would not be equally valid, what does it take for a law passed by a legislature instead of a ballot initiative to be valid in your eyes?

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling