As a matter of jurisprudence, I agree with that - in that the purpose of the statement is to say the US Constitution does not impose such a moral judgement upon the individual states.
I'm far more concerned with statements like:
> Contrary to the cliché so tritely tossed about in freshman poli-sci courses, the States can and must legislate morality.
and
> Even legislation that is largely symbolic and infrequently enforced (due to other salutary checks on government power, like the Fourth Amendment) has significant pedagogical value. Laws teach people what they should and should not do, based on the experiences of their elders.
FWIW, I'll also say that I strongly disagree with the amicus, on multiple grounds.
Thank you for reading it. My choice of quote wasn't the best, as i am not equipped to interpret the fine details correctly in entirety. However i am happy that my overall disagreement is shared.
And i agree, that while more subtle, the points you pointed out represent a far further reaching and far more dangerous misunderstanding of the purpose of law.
There are in my opinion many details like this that many voters were not aware of, either through deception, omission or just plain lack of time to research. And to be sure, there will be such details about Clinton.
However, on balance, i am confident that Trump and the people he surrounds himself with represent a much bigger danger to the lifelihood and health of innocent people than Clinton would've been, if only because the fact that such things are said publicly indicate that restraint is not something they bother with even for appearances.
I'm far more concerned with statements like:
> Contrary to the cliché so tritely tossed about in freshman poli-sci courses, the States can and must legislate morality.
and
> Even legislation that is largely symbolic and infrequently enforced (due to other salutary checks on government power, like the Fourth Amendment) has significant pedagogical value. Laws teach people what they should and should not do, based on the experiences of their elders.
FWIW, I'll also say that I strongly disagree with the amicus, on multiple grounds.