From: "Anlatt the Builder" 

On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, "John D.Wentzky"
 wrote:
>
> >>> Not if the law is changed, and, in some places, it has changed.
>
> >> By the constitutionally required process?
>
> > In Massachusetts, it was the constitutionally required process.
>
> Opinion is what you are siding with, not with Constitutional law.
>
> > You see, all laws have to be in compliance with the State Constitution.
>
> And, the existing marriage laws before the mssc corrupted them were so.
> The marriage laws before the mssc courrupted them were enacted by the
> Constitutional process.
> The mssc is out of order.
>


You obviously don't understand the U.S. legal system. A law that is
"enacted by the Constitutional process" (by which I can only
assume you mean voted on by the legislature) can still be found
unconstitutional when challenged in court.

It happens all the time. At one time many states had laws - "enacted
by the Constitutional process" (that is, the state legislatures voted
in favor of them) that outlawed marriages between people of different
races.

When these laws were challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court found (in 1964)
that they were unconstitutional.

What the Mass. Supreme Court did was exactly the same (except that it
involved the Mass. State Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution.)

If you don't understand even that much, you shouldn't be arguing about
anything that involves the law. You're not qualified.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag