After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage..
Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution
United States v. Windsor
Again, for the 20th time......the laws of the state
are subject to constitutional guarantees.
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.
Windsor v. US
Why do you bother ignoring this simple fact? Its not like anyone reading the thread won't notice our dozens of citations of Windsor where the courts explicitly state as much. Its not like anyone reading the thread won't notice that you ignore any mention of the constitutional guarantees that all state marriage laws are subject to.
And the USSC certainly isn't going to ignore its own ruling just because its inconvenient to your argument.
So what possible purpose could be served in ignoring any mention of 'constitutional guarentees' cited by Windsor? I just don't get it.
Especially since
every single federal court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans did so on the basis that such bans violated these very constitutional guarantees. Making them immediately relevant.
And yet you completely ignore them. Huh.
Don't keel over from shock, therefore, if the US Supreme Court for this and the child-welfare (100% deprivation of the complimentary gender issue of gay marriage "as parent") thing and a host of other reasons, reaffirms Windsor's conclusions in the new case stating once again that the proper protocol for deciding the legality of gay marriage rests within those discreet communities and their "statewide deliberative process".
Save of course that the 'complimentary gender' schtick is yours. The USSC have never made this the basis of any ruling on gay marriage. Worse, the USSC has found harm to children in DENYING gay marriage;
And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....
.....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.
Windsor v. US
The USSC has never found any harm to children from same sex marriage. They have found harm to children from the denial of same sex marriage. Exactly the opposite of your assumptions.
Worse, your assumptions are just silly. As gays and lesbians are already having kids. The only question of relevance to the courts is whether its better for the parents of those children to be married, or to be forbidden from marriage.
And the courts have clearly taken a side that forbidding marriage harms those children.
So why would the courts ignore their own findings of actual harm and instead accept your imaginary harm?
I can't think of a single reason.
That when it comes to lifestyles such as "gay" or "polygamy" or "incest", it's up to a state to decide with everyone's voice whether or not these new lifestyles are acceptable to expose children to "in marriage"..
Unless that 'voice' calls for laws that violate the constitutional guarantees that all state marriage laws are subject to. As almost every federal court to adjudicate the issue has found.
