Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 54,242
- 16,467
- 2,250
Like I said before-
1) Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.
Really no need to go any further.
And yet the Opinion ended with same-sex marriage only legal in 12 states (which didn't include California BTW)
More accurately, they said that 11 states plus NY had decided to recognize gay marriage.
State marriage laws are still subject to constitutional guarantees. Nothing you've posted refutes that or even disagrees with it. You simply ignore it.....as if by ignoring it, the USSC will magically ignore all constitutional guarantees as well.
If only reality worked that way.
So it's "same-sex marriage proponents" 1 (?) or 0 and.."state's rights proponents" 56 references in text.
You do realize that Windsor v. US struck down DOMA's prohibitions on gay marriage, right? With Kennedy waxing eloquently on how denying gays the right to marry violated their rights, robbed them of rightful benefits and harmed their children?
And you have exactly 0 references in the Windsor decision of States having the authority to violate constitutional guarantees. And another 0 references to the State marriage laws trumping the federal judiciary.
Talk to me when you can. As every challenge to gay marriage bans that the USSC is hearing are on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.