In my earlier post this morning, I somehow failed to mention the most important inconsistency of all in the position of conservatives who support a judicial redefinition of marriage: How, exactly, do they intend to protect the conscience rights of those who -- for religious reasons -- do not believe in a new definition of marriage? Or do their First Amendment rights simply dissolve by judicial fiat? After all, if gay marriage becomes a constitutionally protected right, how can the conscience rights of true religious objectors be accommodated?
Eric Erickson lays out the argument elegantly here http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/26/gay-marriage-and-religious-freedom-are-not-compatible/.
San Diego City Officials Wanted To Ban 'Gender Biased' Phrase 'Founding Fathers' Ahead Of Presidents Day | Matt Vespa
Dozens of Hillary's Top Aides Had Top Secret Info "Too Damaging to Release" on Private Email Accounts | Katie Pavlich