Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[emilynghiem]

Either way, it is a religious/spiritual matter to distinguish this, which is private.

My state's constitutional amendment defining marriage was not religious based.

My personal objection to gay marriage is not religious.

Be gay all you want.

The State does not have to sanction or legitimize your free and legal choice.

If it is based on your PERSONAL values, beliefs or preferences, I'm saying that is the same thing "legally" as having an equal religious preference that is protected by law.

Being prochoice is not "officially a religion."
But it is a personal viewpoint, which I weigh as equally protected as a religious belief is.

If we treated all views with equal respect and inclusion, we could clean up politics out of government, keep private decisions private, and reserve govt for purely public policies that everyone agrees represents common interests. The rest can be managed in private so we quit fighting over pushing biases into public policy. That's what is causing the problems.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If it is based on your PERSONAL values, beliefs or preferences, I'm saying that is the same thing "legally" as having an equal religious preference that is protected by law.

All law is based on personal values, which values drive the election of the officials who make the laws.

Those values can be diametric to religious dogma or teachings.

Be gay. A state can decide it is not going to sanction it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"You don't do that by providing a loophole in marriage for people to access orphaned kids who as a cultural-whole have elevated a child sex predator as their "sexual poster boy" for their "civil rights movement".

You are as sick as koshergrl, sis. Heterosexuals abuse children far greater numbers than homosexuals.

By this moronic logic, then all marriage should be considered pedophilia shelters.

Step off!

 

[OODA_Loop]

Either people or the states need to AGREE on a policy in order for govt to oversee marriage

My State defined marriage as between a man and a woman in its' constitution.

Alabama, Virginia, and others defined marriages as between peoples of the same race in their constitution (and statutory law passed by legislatures).


>>>>

Race is a protected class.

Gay is not.

 

[WorldWatcher]

My State defined marriage as between a man and a woman in its' constitution.

Alabama, Virginia, and others defined marriages as between peoples of the same race in their constitution (and statutory law passed by legislatures).


>>>>

Race is a protected class.

Gay is not.

"Yet Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians."

***

"Sweeping and comprehensive is the change in legal status effected by this law. So much is evident from the ordinances that the Colorado Supreme Court declared would be void by operation of Amendment 2. Homosexuals, by state decree, are put in a solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both the private and governmental spheres. The amendment withdraws from homosexuals, but no others, specific legal protection from the injuries caused by discrimination, and it forbids reinstatement of these laws and policies."

***

"Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from securing protection against the injuries that these public accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment. See, e.g., Aspen Municipal Code §§13-98(b), (c) (1977); Boulder Rev. Code §§12-1-2,12-1-3 (1987); Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV §§28-93 to 28-95, §28-97 (1991)."

***

"Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests. "

***

"Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence."

***

"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed. "



Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).


*********************************************************

We'll have to see if the SCOTUS continues to identify them as a class of persons singled out for unequal treatment under the law and whether that action is Constitutional.

Everyone know, well at least those not interesting in semantic games (which doesn't appear to include you...) that bans on Same-sex Civil Marriage were specifically enacted to deny a class of persons (i.e. homosexuals) equal access and protections under the law.

>>>>

 

[OODA_Loop]

Alabama, Virginia, and others defined marriages as between peoples of the same race in their constitution (and statutory law passed by legislatures).


>>>>

Race is a protected class.

Gay is not.

"Yet Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians."

***

"Sweeping and comprehensive is the change in legal status effected by this law. So much is evident from the ordinances that the Colorado Supreme Court declared would be void by operation of Amendment 2. Homosexuals, by state decree, are put in a solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both the private and governmental spheres. The amendment withdraws from homosexuals, but no others, specific legal protection from the injuries caused by discrimination, and it forbids reinstatement of these laws and policies."

***

"Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from securing protection against the injuries that these public accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment. See, e.g., Aspen Municipal Code §§13-98(b), (c) (1977); Boulder Rev. Code §§12-1-2,12-1-3 (1987); Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV §§28-93 to 28-95, §28-97 (1991)."

***

"Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests. "

***

"Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence."

***

"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed. "



Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).


*********************************************************

We'll have to see if the SCOTUS continues to identify them as a class of persons singled out for unequal treatment under the law and whether that action is Constitutional.

Everyone know, well at least those not interesting in semantic games (which doesn't appear to include you...) that bans on Same-sex Civil Marriage were specifically enacted to deny a class of persons (i.e. homosexuals) equal access and protections under the law.

>>>>

Well they could have used that rational in Windsor and been done with it for good.

They said it was a state purview.

 

[Seawytch]

So the next case they are going to say: Marriage is now not the States right contrary to what we affirmed last year ?







I am not certain that is a lock.

I am...since they only ruled, in Windsor, on the states that said yes.

So a state can say YES but can't say NO ?

"No" hasn't been heard by the SCOTUS...but the no states do keep losing.

 

[Seawytch]

Race is a protected class.



Gay is not.

"Yet Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians."



***



"Sweeping and comprehensive is the change in legal status effected by this law. So much is evident from the ordinances that the Colorado Supreme Court declared would be void by operation of Amendment 2. Homosexuals, by state decree, are put in a solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both the private and governmental spheres. The amendment withdraws from homosexuals, but no others, specific legal protection from the injuries caused by discrimination, and it forbids reinstatement of these laws and policies."



***



"Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from securing protection against the injuries that these public accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment. See, e.g., Aspen Municipal Code §§13-98(b), (c) (1977); Boulder Rev. Code §§12-1-2,12-1-3 (1987); Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV §§28-93 to 28-95, §28-97 (1991)."



***



"Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests. "



***



"Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence."



***



"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed. "







Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).





*********************************************************



We'll have to see if the SCOTUS continues to identify them as a class of persons singled out for unequal treatment under the law and whether that action is Constitutional.



Everyone know, well at least those not interesting in semantic games (which doesn't appear to include you...) that bans on Same-sex Civil Marriage were specifically enacted to deny a class of persons (i.e. homosexuals) equal access and protections under the law.



>>>>

Well they could have used that rational in Windsor and been done with it for good.



They said it was a state purview.

They can't rule on a question that wasn't before them in Windsor.

 

[OODA_Loop]

"Yet Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians."



***



"Sweeping and comprehensive is the change in legal status effected by this law. So much is evident from the ordinances that the Colorado Supreme Court declared would be void by operation of Amendment 2. Homosexuals, by state decree, are put in a solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both the private and governmental spheres. The amendment withdraws from homosexuals, but no others, specific legal protection from the injuries caused by discrimination, and it forbids reinstatement of these laws and policies."



***



"Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from securing protection against the injuries that these public accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment. See, e.g., Aspen Municipal Code §§13-98(b), (c) (1977); Boulder Rev. Code §§12-1-2,12-1-3 (1987); Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV §§28-93 to 28-95, §28-97 (1991)."



***



"Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests. "



***



"Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence."



***



"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed. "







Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).





*********************************************************



We'll have to see if the SCOTUS continues to identify them as a class of persons singled out for unequal treatment under the law and whether that action is Constitutional.



Everyone know, well at least those not interesting in semantic games (which doesn't appear to include you...) that bans on Same-sex Civil Marriage were specifically enacted to deny a class of persons (i.e. homosexuals) equal access and protections under the law.



>>>>

Well they could have used that rational in Windsor and been done with it for good.



They said it was a state purview.

They can't rule on a question that wasn't before them in Windsor.

No but they can affirm other concepts of law in order to determine the matter before them .

In Windsor that affirmation was the state can approve gay marriage and that being within their purview, meant Windsor's Federal benefits cannot be denied to her spouse and DOMA was unconstitutional because the STATE ALLOWED the gay marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

Alabama, Virginia, and others defined marriages as between peoples of the same race in their constitution (and statutory law passed by legislatures).


>>>>

That was about race, not sexual behaviors, age or incest. See the difference?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Race is a protected class.

Gay is not.

"Yet Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians."

***

"Sweeping and comprehensive is the change in legal status effected by this law. So much is evident from the ordinances that the Colorado Supreme Court declared would be void by operation of Amendment 2. Homosexuals, by state decree, are put in a solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both the private and governmental spheres. The amendment withdraws from homosexuals, but no others, specific legal protection from the injuries caused by discrimination, and it forbids reinstatement of these laws and policies."

***

"Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from securing protection against the injuries that these public accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment. See, e.g., Aspen Municipal Code §§13-98(b), (c) (1977); Boulder Rev. Code §§12-1-2,12-1-3 (1987); Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV §§28-93 to 28-95, §28-97 (1991)."

***

"Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests. "

***

"Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence."

***

"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed. "



Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).


*********************************************************

We'll have to see if the SCOTUS continues to identify them as a class of persons singled out for unequal treatment under the law and whether that action is Constitutional.

Everyone know, well at least those not interesting in semantic games (which doesn't appear to include you...) that bans on Same-sex Civil Marriage were specifically enacted to deny a class of persons (i.e. homosexuals) equal access and protections under the law.

>>>>

Well they could have used that rational in Windsor and been done with it for good.

Windsor was not a State law case, it was a Federal law case.

They said it was a state purview.

They also said it was subject to "constitutional guarantees", they have not reviewed a case and issued a decision where that is the core question.

From the Windsor decision:

"Section 3 is at issue here. It amends the Dictionary Act
in Title 1, §7, of the United States Code to provide a fed-
eral definition of “marriage” and “spouse.”​

Windsor was a case about United States code (i.e. Federal law) and not the Revised Statutes of the State of New York which enacted Marriage Equality in that State.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well they could have used that rational in Windsor and been done with it for good.



They said it was a state purview.

They can't rule on a question that wasn't before them in Windsor.

No but they can affirm other concepts of law in order to determine the matter before them .

In Windsor that affirmation was the state can approve gay marriage and that being within their purview, meant Windsor's Federal benefits cannot be denied to her spouse and DOMA was unconstitutional because the STATE ALLOWED the gay marriage.

In Windsor they said that State Civil Marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees, they did not address what (if any) those were in that decision. As Chief Justice Roberts said in the Windsor document that "that" question will be in another case.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Alabama, Virginia, and others defined marriages as between peoples of the same race in their constitution (and statutory law passed by legislatures).


>>>>

That was about race, not sexual behaviors, age or incest. See the difference?

The claim was that the 14th Amendment does not apply to homosexuals. The Romer decision shows that is incorrect, homosexuals are covered by the 14th. The SCOTUS already acknowledged that.



>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As Utah's 2/3rds majority squares off with gays, the matter will be a clear and concise freedom of religion in the 1st vs a very longshot hopeful "equality" stab at the 14th.

I say, gays will fail at the 14th since they are behavioral, not a "race" and therefore subject to local laws and customs.

I don't claim to know how the SCOTUS will decide if the Utah case is laid before them, but the Romer decision shows that you are incorrect about the court not applying the 14th Amendment to homosexuals.


Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).


>>>>

Funny, I could have sworn it applied it to the state.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I didn't say that. Gays are the ones famous for saying "this is a matter of formality, it's in the bag/inevitable so get used to it". What I am saying is that gays need to pull off the rose colored glasses as to the weight of facts in Harvey Milk vs Utah...

You didn't say "I say, gays will fail at the 14th since they are behavioral, not a "race" and therefore subject to local laws and customs."?

That is the statement to which I responded, yes the SCOTUS has already shown they are willing to rule unconstitutional laws which target homosexuals. Your statement that homosexuality is a "behavior" and not a "race" and therefore is not subject to constitutionalists protections is false.


There is no case for "Harvey Milk vs Utah", you continued use of Milk is a fallacy (i.e. "position the well" fallacy) which has no more merit then a childish attempt to paint all homosexuals as some type of molesters. An argument that will never see the inside of a courtroom for serious consideration.



>>>>

Let me explain what happened, Colorado declared that some people have fewer rights than others. That is flat out unconstitutional, and wrong. The court did not use the facts of the case to extend protections to homosexuals, it prohibited the state from denying them protections based on whatever criteria the state wanted to use.

 

[OODA_Loop]

"Yet Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians."

***

"Sweeping and comprehensive is the change in legal status effected by this law. So much is evident from the ordinances that the Colorado Supreme Court declared would be void by operation of Amendment 2. Homosexuals, by state decree, are put in a solitary class with respect to transactions and relations in both the private and governmental spheres. The amendment withdraws from homosexuals, but no others, specific legal protection from the injuries caused by discrimination, and it forbids reinstatement of these laws and policies."

***

"Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from securing protection against the injuries that these public accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment. See, e.g., Aspen Municipal Code §§13-98(b), (c) (1977); Boulder Rev. Code §§12-1-2,12-1-3 (1987); Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV §§28-93 to 28-95, §28-97 (1991)."

***

"Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests. "

***

"Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence."

***

"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed. "



Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).


*********************************************************

We'll have to see if the SCOTUS continues to identify them as a class of persons singled out for unequal treatment under the law and whether that action is Constitutional.

Everyone know, well at least those not interesting in semantic games (which doesn't appear to include you...) that bans on Same-sex Civil Marriage were specifically enacted to deny a class of persons (i.e. homosexuals) equal access and protections under the law.

>>>>

Well they could have used that rational in Windsor and been done with it for good.

Windsor was not a State law case, it was a Federal law case.

They said it was a state purview.

They also said it was subject to "constitutional guarantees", they have not reviewed a case and issued a decision where that is the core question.

From the Windsor decision:

"Section 3 is at issue here. It amends the Dictionary Act
in Title 1, §7, of the United States Code to provide a fed-
eral definition of “marriage” and “spouse.”​

Windsor was a case about United States code (i.e. Federal law) and not the Revised Statutes of the State of New York which enacted Marriage Equality in that State.


>>>>

I respect your analysis but feel you discredit the state affirmation in Windsor.

It really is and always has been a State matter, just as they relied upon in Windsor.

From the decision:

This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today's opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation.

Thus, the Windsor decision rests on an amalgam of constitutional principles. If the federal government had plenary or primary authority over the definition of marriage, then perhaps DOMA would have been constitutional, but it also would have been unnecessary, because Congress could have controlled the issue! Congress has known from the beginning that its members don’t have primary authority over marriage, as evidenced by the fact they enacted DOMA, and not a law that mandated marriage between a man and a woman.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The evidence is undeniable, gays will fail at the 14th. Now that isn't to say the Court won't find some other loophole to force gay marriage on the states that object to it on religious and/or secular grounds and their consensus vote. They may still do that. But I wouldn't hold your breath. Gays just don't qualify for the 14th. Behaviors don't. Sorry.

Yet the 14th was that basis for the Romer decision when Colorado passed a State Constitutional Amendment targeting homosexuals.

Sorry, the 14th has already applied to homosexuals by the SCOTUS.


>>>>

The 14th Amendment applies to governments, not people. If you don't believe me, read it.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
​

The ellipses are there because the Supreme Court said that the 14th Amendment doesn't say what it says in the Slaughter-House cases.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I respect your analysis but feel you discredit the state affirmation in Windsor.

It really is and always has been a State matter, just as they relied upon in Windsor.

From the decision:

This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today's opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation.

Thus, the Windsor decision rests on an amalgam of constitutional principles. If the federal government had plenary or primary authority over the definition of marriage, then perhaps DOMA would have been constitutional, but it also would have been unnecessary, because Congress could have controlled the issue! Congress has known from the beginning that its members don’t have primary authority over marriage, as evidenced by the fact they enacted DOMA, and not a law that mandated marriage between a man and a woman.

I'm not trying to "discredit" Windsor, just showing it's context. A context that the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court confirms:

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s
analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to
point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does
not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide,
the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of
their “historic and essential authority to define the marital
relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional
definition of marriage"

~~Chief Justice Roberts​

Unlike others, I don't make claims about how a future case is going to come out. Right now one can assume that the court is 4, 4, and 1 with the liberal Justices on one side, the conservative Justices on the other and Justice Kennedy will be the deciding factor. Since he authored Lawrence (anti sodomy unconstitutional), Romer (law targeting homosexual unconstitutional), and Windsor (Federal discrimination against homosexuals is unconstitutional) - I'm just saying it ain't over.

>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

My State defined marriage as between a man and a woman in its' constitution.

Alabama, Virginia, and others defined marriages as between peoples of the same race in their constitution (and statutory law passed by legislatures).


>>>>

Race is a protected class.

Gay is not.

Incorrect.

Race is a suspect class, where laws seeking to deny African Americans their civil liberties, for example, are usually subject to a level of judicial review known as strict scrutiny.

Sexual orientation is a protected class, where laws seeking to deny gay Americans their civil liberties, for example, are subject to one of two levels of judicial review, rational basis or intermediate scrutiny.

In Romer, for example, Amendment 2 failed to survive a rational basis review, and was invalidated accordingly.

The states are at liberty to place limits on our civil rights – provided those limitations are rationally based, are supported by objective, documented evidence in support, pursue a proper legislative end, and do not seek to disadvantage a particular class of persons.

Laws designed to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law fail to satisfy any of the above criteria, such laws seek only to make gay Americans different from everyone else.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It really is and always has been a State matter...

True.

And ideally the states should obey the 14th Amendment and allow same-sex couples to avail themselves of the contract law that is marriage; contracts they’ve always been eligible to participate in.

In many states, unfortunately, that is not the case, and those adversely effected have no other recourse than to seek relief in Federal court.