TheProgressivePatriot
Gold Member
More insane ranting !!Correct. And in Windsor 2013, it found 56 times that this type of discrimination was/is right and proper in the individual states: Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?In Correct. Nowhere does Windsor say anything to the effect of "this type of discrimination( on the part of the states) was/is right and proper in the individual states . The decision simply recognizes the fact that at the time of it's writing, the constitutional right to same sex marriage had not been established. Yes, the basis of the decision was that since the states had the right to approve same sex marriage or not, the federal government would be undercutting the authority of states that allowed it.
Nothing in Windsor means that the states have an absolute right to regulate marriage.
And they still haven't. Do you know why that is (besides Ginsburg's advertised bias before Obergefell and children not having separate counsel briefing their interests in the proposed contract- revision)? It's because since LGBT are lifestyles repugnant to the majority (deviant sex acts inviting kids to watch on parade "in pride" every year since the 1960s across most towns and cities in the US), and still managed to shoehorn immunity from majority rule by their 5 pals in the USSC in 2015, the bar has been set. Very low. So other groups the majority find repugnant (see the 14th for details) can now join LGBT in immunity from majority rule. All they have to do is (subjectively) say their behaviors feel not chosen and voila! The conditions are met.
This is why Scalia died. He knew where the false premise was leading. And here we are today.