I've quoted Obergefell recognizing the right to marry
The Right to marry is predicated upon the conditions of Marriage wherein Nature designed Marriage as The Joining of One Man and One Woman.
Says you, pretending that you are both nature, the USSC, and the law. But you're none of these things. Rendering your claims a mere declaration of empty personal opinion.
And poorly informed opinion at that. As marriage doesn't exist anywhere but within human societies. No where else in nature has it. We invented it, not 'nature'. And it is what we say it is. Every culture defines marriage in a manner that is consistent with their values. And we do as well, including same sex couples as their inclusion is consistent with our values.
As marriage is our invention and we define it.....it now includes same sex couples. Get used to the idea.
Did ya?
In Windsor the Court found DOMA to offend the Constitution because it represented an "unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage..." (Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2693).
The Court stated, "By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage . . . has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States" (Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2689-90).
Yup. I did. As again, you omit any mention of constitutional guarantees, prtending that they don't exist. Despite the fact that Windsor explicitly found that state marriage laws are subject constitutional guarantees.
Windsor v. US said:
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.
You can pretend that constitutional guarentees don't exist. You can ignore any mention of them in the WIndsor ruling. But you can't make the actual constitutional guaratnees disappear. Nor can you make the court ignore them.
This, right here, is why your predictions about how the Obergefell ruling was going to go down were so wildly incompetent and so completely wrong: you ignored anything in the Windsor ruling that you didn't like. You even ignored the very concept of constitutional guarantees. ANd then laughably concluded that since you ignored them, the Courts were obligated to do the same.
I ask again....how'd that work out for you?
Thus the newly formed Supreme Legislature turned from its recent finding in Windsor to divine a federal right to marry, thus licensing degeneracy and in the process rendering Marriage effectively MEANINGLESS.
On the contrary, the Obergefell court placed constitutional guarantees above state marriage laws. Exactly as the said in Windsor. In fact, the position of the courts on the issue was so ludicriously clear that Scalia predicted the Obergefell ruling based on the WIndsor ruling:
Justice Scalia in Dissent of Windsor v. US said:
In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. Consider how easy (inevitable) it is to make the following substitutions in a passage from today’s opinion
'Beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable'. It was obvious what the court prioritized and how they were going to rule. Even Scalia could tell.
But you thought you knew better. You thought you knew what the court 'really meant', and insisted that the Obergefell ruling was going to overturn same sex marriage.
You were laughably wrong. As your willful ignorance doesn't limit the court in any way. And just because you ignored constitutional guarantees and individual rights doesn't mean the court's were similarly obligated.
The inept dismissal of anything you don't want to believe is at the heart of why you fail over and over and over again. And I'm almost certain she's told you the exact same thing. Just before she gave you divorce papers.
