DOMA Case was Corrupt Horse & Pony Show that SCOTUS Had No Authority to Hear.

[radcen]

I could sum up this entire thread with two words.

Sore Losers.

It really does feel that way.

 

[Trip]

it's your opinion that the precedence i cited is not analogous to the current decision not to defend DOMA due to its unconstitutional nature. you're entitled to that opinion, but i disagree with it.

It's not my mere "opinion" at all, but the FACTS of thoe cases that you yourself cited, otherwise you would also be able to reference the facts of the case to counter my argument. However those facts to correlate to this DOMA action don't exist, so this cannot be done.

The FACT is that nowhere in Court history has the DOJ played both sides of the case, appealing a decision that the DOJ not only in fact agreed with, but also the DOJ had fascilitated that decision, in providing remuneration of the plaintiff, making them whole and removing ANY AND ALL Jurisdiction for the Court to hear the case! There was quite literally no CASE at that point! And instead the DOJ assumed its position in order to promote the case up two whole court levels to be before SCOTUS! This is entirely corrupt, abuse of the legal system, and cause to not only impeach Holder, but also impeach those 5 members of the Court!

This administration has repeatedly used this corrupt means of not defending the U.S. Laws, by deliberately caving on such suits against interests like environmental groups, even reaching an agreement out of court, so that the government can then later turn around and claim it has no authority to not abide by these cases, and then does what this corrupt administration can then precede with doing exactly what it wanted to do in the first place!

However even these cases fall far short of what occurred under DOMA, with the DOJ ("the government") playing both sides of a court case, in order to advance to case to be before SCOTUS, and enable a corrupt ruling based on corrupt terms, and wholesale violation of the Constitution, and Speration of Powers, while claiming it is making the decision by that Constitution.

Even Scalia indicated the same thing, showing it is not at all merely "opinion", but rather historical fact of the Court's legitimate authority :

Scalia: "We have never before agreed to speak-to "say what the law is" - where there is no controversy before us. In more than two centuries that this Court has existed as an institution, we never suggested that we have the power to decide a question when every party agrees with both its nominal opponent and the court below on that question's answer. The United States reluctantly conceded that at oral argument."​

as for the constitutional right to marry, that was established as a basic civil right in Loving v Virginia : Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First of all, Loving did not indicate that marriage under any terms was a civil right to man, but rather recognized marriage as man-woman relationship. Loving does not at all apply to the consideration of gay marriage, in which the terms of marriage are being redefined. Loving presumes that the interracial marriages are legitimate, and able to be entered into, because they meet the basic terms of man-woman relationships that constitute marriage. The claim that Loving applies to gay marriage entirely disregards the terms of the holding.

Secondly "Civil Rights" are not the same as "rights" that are guaranteed by the Constitution. As shown throughout the history of this country, Civil Rights were a fabricated corruption and reward of this government, when "rights" are specifically prohibited to being acted upon by that federal government.

in a couple years, a case analogous to Loving will make its way through the courts, and specific injury caused by the state bans will be demonstrated. when this happens, the anti-gay amendments to state constitutions will be thrown out, as well.

There can be no 'specific injury' from the denial of gay marriage by the states, nor the federal government, because nowhere among "rights" is there any assurance of outcome in the form of recognition and reward. "Rights" do not involve outcome, and do not guarantee recognition and reward, specifically not under different terms.

This argument involves and necessitates the corruption of enormous swatchs of the Constitution, as well as the term "rights" itself. It is in no way supported by the Constitution, which is why Kennedy et al thoroughly balked on constitutional reference in the DOMA decision, a case they had no jurisdiction to judge, and the judgement was entirely in conflict with not only "rights", but the applied 5th Amendment "due process" argument, which was only vaguely claimed, and never argued.

 

[CriticalThought]

It really does feel that way.

There is no "feel" about it. It was a fair case that they would have gleefully accepted had it gone their way but now they want to bitch, moan, and complain about it on a constant basis and cry foul rather than honorably accept the defeat and take their case to the states and the people. That is pathetic beyond words.

 

[Trip]

I could sum up this entire thread with two words.

Sore Losers.

It's only "sore losers" if one imagines that the Rule of Law in this country amounts to dictation of the majority.


However this will leave a great many looking desperately for an explanation, when the law is rejected, and people take up arms, and the law into their own hands, in order to overthrow a corrupt government and restore the Constitution.

 

[CriticalThought]

It's only "sore losers" if one imagines that the Rule of Law in this country amounts to dictation of the majority.


However this will leave a great many looking desperately for an explanation, when the law is rejected, and people take up arms, and the law into their own hands, in order to overthrow a corrupt government and restore the Constitution.

Do I hear whining? How many other Supreme Court cases have you given this much attention? Where are your other threads on the so called "dictation of the majority"? Or did that just suddenly materialize with this specific case?

 

[Trip]

There is no "feel" about it. It was a fair case that they would have gleefully accepted had it gone their way but now they want to bitch, moan, and complain about it on a constant basis and cry foul rather than honorably accept the defeat and take their case to the states and the people. That is pathetic beyond words.

It wasn't even a legitimate case at all, much less a "fair" one. The Court had ZERO jurisdiction to even hear the case, which had been resolved two courts below.

"Fairness" is irrelevant to law and the Constitution, and nether the law nor the Constitution were applied in order to reach the corrupt decision that DOMA was unconstitutional, which is why the decision was utterly devoid of constitutional argument, and only vague reference to the 5th Amendment, which was not at all applicable.


What was resolved by your terms of "fairness" was Prop 8 which was instituted into the California constitution, not just law, that marriage was between a man and woman. Despite it being now a part of the Constitution, the California executive <Governor>, and Judiciary refused to abide by that constitution, and instead made their own law, by decree.

And this is the commonality between the DOMA decision and the Prop 8 decision: support by a few elites, of a few elites dictating the terms of society.

That's not any sort of philosophy upon which this country founded, but rather is precisely the ideology that caused this nation's founders to pick up arms and overthrow such tyranny.

 

[Helix]

Hmmm, the old "well everyone else did it" argument. That doesn't make it constitutional. As far as I'm concerned, Holder can write all briefs he want's, but for him to outright refuse to uphold a law based on the ideology of his boss is a dangerous road to go down and vests the executive branch with unlimited authority. As I asked earlier: Do we want to keep going down this road?

yes, it's entirely appropriate to not defend an obviously unconstitutional policy, such as the federal government refusing to recognize a legal marriage. oversight is still there, as this case was still heard by the SCOTUS.

 

[CriticalThought]

It wasn't even a legitimate case at all, much less a "fair" one. The Court had ZERO jurisdiction to even hear the case, which had been resolved two courts below.

"Fairness" is irrelevant to law and the Constitution, and nether the law nor the Constitution were applied in order to reach the corrupt decision that DOMA was unconstitutional, which is why the decision was utterly devoid of constitutional argument, and only vague reference to the 5th Amendment, which was not at all applicable.


What was resolved by your terms of "fairness" was Prop 8 which was instituted into the California constitution, not just law, that marriage was between a man and woman. Despite it being now a part of the Constitution, the California executive <Governor>, and Judiciary refused to abide by that constitution, and instead made their own law, by decree.

And this is the commonality between the DOMA decision and the Prop 8 decision: support by a few elites, of a few elites dictating the terms of society.

That's not any sort of philosophy upon which this country founded, but rather is precisely the ideology that caused this nation's founders to pick up arms and overthrow such tyranny.

ROFL! It wasn't fair but fairness is irrelevant? And now allowing gay couples to marry is equatable to tyranny? You are funny.

 

[Trip]

Do I hear whining? How many other Supreme Court cases have you given this much attention? Where are your other threads on the so called "dictation of the majority"? Or did that just suddenly materialize with this specific case?

Look around at the my posts in any of the threads of this Constitution forum. Each one involves such a reference to Democratic tyranny of the majority nowhere being a part of this country's principle, and rather deliberately excluded from this country's principle.

We are, by deliberate act, not any sort of Democracy at all, not a Representative Democracy, not a Constitutional Democracy, but rather a Constitutional Republic, in which "the wants of the majority" are entirely irrelevant to what the government can legitimately do.

 

[CriticalThought]

Look around at the my posts in any of the threads of this Constitution forum. Each one involves such a reference to Democratic tyranny of the majority nowhere being a part of this country's principle, and rather deliberately excluded from this country's principle.

We are, by deliberate act, not any sort of Democracy at all, not a Representative Democracy, not a Constitutional Democracy, but rather a Constitutional Republic, in which "the wants of the majority" are entirely irrelevant to what the government can legitimately do.

True enough. And the Supreme Court protected the rights of a minority against a majority that had tried to suppress them. Good to see you are on our side on this issue.

 

[Trip]

ROFL! It wasn't fair but fairness is irrelevant? And now allowing gay couples to marry is equatable to tyranny? You are funny.

I never used fairness as any part of my argument.

Yes, the dictation of the terms of society, by an elite few, in disregard for legal process and legal authority, is in fact tyranny.

Have you ever actually read the Declaration of Independence, ya know, beyond what they teach in elementary school of "taxation without representation", which in truth has only superficial reference therein?

 

[Trip]

True enough. And the Supreme Court protected the rights of a minority against a majority that had tried to suppress them. Good to see you are on our side on this issue.

There is no right to marriage at all, particularly not under whatever terms one might create, much less was any alleged right to marriage denied them by DOMA.

I see you like to employ the dishonesty of claiming I indicated something my argument never involved; is this some sort of Pavlovian response inherent to Progressives?

 

[CriticalThought]

I never used fairness as any part of my argument.

Yeah ya did. When you said it wasn't "fair" you were using fairness as part of your argument.

Yes, the dictation of the terms of society, by an elite few, in disregard for legal process and legal authority, is in fact tyranny.

Uh huh. And so you, as a singular individual without the basis of any legal process or legal authority, have decided that SCOTUS acted without any legal process and legal authority. Why are you such a tyrant?

Have you ever actually read the Declaration of Independence, ya know, beyond what they teach in elementary school of "taxation without representation", which in truth has only superficial reference therein?

So...a 300 year old document declaring independence from the British is now the justification for being butthurt about the federal government recognizing same sex marriage in a few states? Man, you really are stretching this more than a bit.

But it is amusing so please continue.

 

[CriticalThought]

There is no right to marriage at all, particularly not under whatever terms one might create, much less was any alleged right to marriage denied them by DOMA.

I guess if you ignore all historical court precedent on the issue that would be true.

I see you like to employ the dishonesty of claiming I indicated something my argument never involved; is this some sort of Pavlovian response inherent to Progressives?

Yup. I see somebody talk out of their ass and then I drool.

 

[Trip]

I guess if you ignore all historical court precedent on the issue that would be true.

I guess it would be true, if you ignore the applicability of a holding, and expand it to whatever, by the same superficial analysis that you apply to the definition of marriage, unfortunately the result is a government ruled by men, and not by law, and ensures the eruption of this country into armed revolt.

Scalia's dissent was nothing short of recognizing the illegitimacy of the Executive, and also the Court, and an alarm as to what will ensue from this.

Yup. I see somebody talk out of their ass and then I drool.

Well, I guess you're entitled to whatever twisted attractions you might have, just not entitled to have them recognized, validated, rewarded, and celebrated.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It's only "sore losers" if one imagines that the Rule of Law in this country amounts to dictation of the majority.

That's how laws get changed. The majority feels that the law is a bad law. The only time that this gets overturned is when what the majority wants goes against some basic premises in the Constitution... what happened here... and even in THIS example, if the majority wanted to alter the Constitution, any part of it, the majority could.

However this will leave a great many looking desperately for an explanation, when the law is rejected, and people take up arms, and the law into their own hands, in order to overthrow a corrupt government and restore the Constitution.

None of this is based in reality. It's just you whining because the ruling didn't go your way. All of this stupid hand-wringing and belief that the sky is falling is just that. Stupid. It really makes your side look ridiculous with all of this overdramatics.

 

[Trip]

Yeah ya did. When you said it wasn't "fair" you were using fairness as part of your argument.

What I referenced was " by your terms of 'fairness'". I never applied fairness as any part of my argument. Fairness is an inherently subjective and corrupt argument, and has no place in law or constitution.

Y
Uh huh. And so you, as a singular individual without the basis of any legal process or legal authority, have decided that SCOTUS acted without any legal process and legal authority. Why are you such a tyrant?

No, SCOTUS by its own terms, had no jurisdiction, even as stated emphatically and repeatedly by Justice Scalia. Scalia even went so far as to cite the Majority's rationale for still acting on a case despite it having no jurisdiction to act, and even that rationale has no basis in Supreme Court authority.

So...a 300 year old document declaring independence from the British is now the justification for being butthurt about the federal government recognizing same sex marriage in a few states? Man, you really are stretching this more than a bit.

But it is amusing so please continue.

That 237-year-old document, the Declaration of Independence, declares the founding principle of our Constitution, and states the primary purpose for each and every government, and therefore is recognized in U.S. Code as the "Organic Law", or founding principle of this country.

In point of fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has no authority whatsoever to deny the Congress' authority to write Federal laws specifically only applied to Federal process, which is protected under another fundamental principle of this country known as Separation of Powers.

 

[Lakryte]

The problem is that DOMA was the law of the land which the DOJ is tasked to defend, even if the president disagrees. It is up not up to the DOJ to determine the constitutionality of a law. It is the responsibility of the executive branch to carry out the law and the responsibility of the supreme court to determine constitutionality. If you take this little boondoggle to its logical conclusion, then the DOJ could just decide not to enforce any law the president does not want enforced. Oh, wait! We already do that. My bad. Do you really want to keep going down that road?

This right here.

 

[CriticalThought]

I guess it would be true, if you ignore the applicability of a holding, and expand it to whatever, by the same superficial analysis that you apply to the definition of marriage, unfortunately the result is a government ruled by men, and not by law, and ensures the eruption of this country into armed revolt.

Scalia's dissent was nothing short of recognizing the illegitimacy of the Executive, and also the Court, and an alarm as to what will ensue from this.

Yeah...in the history of SCOTUS rulings, I seriously doubt that this one is off the wall enough to start an armed revolt. Nice hyperbole though.

Well, I guess you're entitled to whatever twisted attractions you might have, just not entitled to have them recognized, validated, rewarded, and celebrated.

Sounds good. But you won't, because you aren't invited. I only want cool people at my wedding. :2razz:

 

[CriticalThought]

What I referenced was " by your terms of 'fairness'". I never applied fairness as any part of my argument. Fairness is an inherently subjective and corrupt argument, and has no place in law or constitution.

Well we aren't talking about love or war here...so whatever.

No, SCOTUS by its own terms, had no jurisdiction, even as stated emphatically and repeatedly by Justice Scalia. Scalia even went so far as to cite the Majority's rationale for still acting on a case despite it having no jurisdiction to act, and even that rationale has no basis in Supreme Court authority.

It's Scalia dude. He says that just about every case where he isn't part of the majority.

That 237-year-old document, the Declaration of Independence, declares the founding principle of our Constitution, and states the primary purpose for each and every government, and therefore is recognized in U.S. Code as the "Organic Law", or founding principle of this country.

In point of fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has no authority whatsoever to deny the Congress' authority to write Federal laws specifically only applied to Federal process, which is protected under another fundamental principle of this country known as Separation of Powers.

Good stuff. I'll let you get right on overthrowing the federal government so you can tell the federal government how the federal government should be run according to your particular interpretation of the documents behind the federal government. And your entire motivation for doing so is you are pissed the gays are marrying and getting recognition for it. Whoopee.

 

[CriticalThought]

The problem is that DOMA was the law of the land which the DOJ is tasked to defend, even if the president disagrees. It is up not up to the DOJ to determine the constitutionality of a law. It is the responsibility of the executive branch to carry out the law and the responsibility of the supreme court to determine constitutionality. If you take this little boondoggle to its logical conclusion, then the DOJ could just decide not to enforce any law the president does not want enforced. Oh, wait! We already do that. My bad. Do you really want to keep going down that road?

The Executive branch enforced the law. They just didn't defend it. Why are they obligated to defend it?

 

[Helix]

It's not my mere "opinion" at all, but the FACTS of thoe cases that you yourself cited, otherwise you would also be able to reference the facts of the case to counter my argument. However those facts to correlate to this DOMA action don't exist, so this cannot be done.

The FACT is that nowhere in Court history has the DOJ played both sides of the case, appealing a decision that the DOJ not only in fact agreed with, but also the DOJ had fascilitated that decision, in providing remuneration of the plaintiff, making them whole and removing ANY AND ALL Jurisdiction for the Court to hear the case! There was quite literally no CASE at that point! And instead the DOJ assumed its position in order to promote the case up two whole court levels to be before SCOTUS! This is entirely corrupt, abuse of the legal system, and cause to not only impeach Holder, but also impeach those 5 members of the Court!

so it's equal protection if one legitimate homosexual marriage is rewarded federal benefits, while all others are not? the DOJ absolutely did the right thing here.

also, impeach the justices? :lol:

This administration has repeatedly used this corrupt means of not defending the U.S. Laws, by deliberately caving on such suits against interests like environmental groups, even reaching an agreement out of court, so that the government can then later turn around and claim it has no authority to not abide by these cases, and then does what this corrupt administration can then precede with doing exactly what it wanted to do in the first place!

However even these cases fall far short of what occurred under DOMA, with the DOJ ("the government") playing both sides of a court case, in order to advance to case to be before SCOTUS, and enable a corrupt ruling based on corrupt terms, and wholesale violation of the Constitution, and Speration of Powers, while claiming it is making the decision by that Constitution.


Even Scalia indicated the same thing, showing it is not at all merely "opinion", but rather historical fact of the Court's legitimate authority :

Scalia: "We have never before agreed to speak-to "say what the law is" - where there is no controversy before us. In more than two centuries that this Court has existed as an institution, we never suggested that we have the power to decide a question when every party agrees with both its nominal opponent and the court below on that question's answer. The United States reluctantly conceded that at oral argument."​

not recognizing some legal marriages while recognizing and rewarding others is an obvious equal protection violation. it's frankly amazing to me that anyone can convince him or herself that this isn't the case. however, i accept that some people are so misinformed and emotionally biased about homosexuality that they cannot recognize the obvious.

First of all, Loving did not indicate that marriage under any terms was a civil right to man, but rather recognized marriage as man-woman relationship. Loving does not at all apply to the consideration of gay marriage, in which the terms of marriage are being redefined. Loving presumes that the interracial marriages are legitimate, and able to be entered into, because they meet the basic terms of man-woman relationships that constitute marriage. The claim that Loving applies to gay marriage entirely disregards the terms of the holding.

sexual orientation is analogous to race, as both are inherent and immutable. if a heterosexual has a constitutional civil right to marriage, a homosexual must, as well.

Secondly "Civil Rights" are not the same as "rights" that are guaranteed by the Constitution. As shown throughout the history of this country, Civil Rights were a fabricated corruption and reward of this government, when "rights" are specifically prohibited to being acted upon by that federal government.

the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. federal recognition of some legal marriages and rejection of other legal marriages is not equal protection.

also, civil rights are a fabricated corruption? what?


Civil rights | LII / Legal Information Institute

There can be no 'specific injury' from the denial of gay marriage by the states, nor the federal government, because nowhere among "rights" is there any assurance of outcome in the form of recognition and reward. "Rights" do not involve outcome, and do not guarantee recognition and reward, specifically not under different terms.

homosexuals in some states get federal tax and social security benefits, as well as a wide assortment of other privileges tied to marriage. homosexuals in other states are completely denied those significant benefits. there is no way that anyone can argue that is equal protection under the law.

This argument involves and necessitates the corruption of enormous swatchs of the Constitution, as well as the term "rights" itself. It is in no way supported by the Constitution, which is why Kennedy et al thoroughly balked on constitutional reference in the DOMA decision, a case they had no jurisdiction to judge, and the judgement was entirely in conflict with not only "rights", but the applied 5th Amendment "due process" argument, which was only vaguely claimed, and never argued.

it's supported by the fourteenth amendment.

Section 1. 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 abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

as for gay marriage in general, the state bans will be tossed as soon as a case demonstrating injury is heard.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...eme-court-decision-on-proposition-8.html?_r=0

 

[Trip]

so it's equal protection if one legitimate homosexual marriage is rewarded federal benefits, while all others are not? the DOJ absolutely did the right thing here.

also, impeach the justices? :lol:

By returning those tax dollars, and interest, the DOJ was acting in contradiction with, and disregard for, the law - lawless. And then in disregard for legal process, the DOJ was complicit, and operating by collusion, to illegitimately advance the case to the Supreme Court, where 5 Justices demanded to act in contradiction with legal process, insisted on having three separate Conference hearings to decide whether or not to hear the case, and then insisted on ruling in a manner in which they had no jurisdiction to rule on, and against Congress legitimate authority, in contradiction to Separation of Powers.

The DOJ repeatedly did the wrong thing, as did numerous justices, all of whom should be impeached.

not recognizing some legal marriages while recognizing and rewarding others is an obvious equal protection violation. it's frankly amazing to me that anyone can convince him or herself that this isn't the case. however, i accept that some people are so misinformed and emotionally biased about homosexuality that they cannot recognize the obvious.

"Reocognition" is nowhere a part of equal protection, which was not the argument made in the DOMA case. And the actual argument made, 5th Amendment "due process", is also inapplicable to DOMA, since the the application of law represents due process, provided it is not a bill of attainder or ex post facto law.

sexual orientation is analogous to race, as both are inherent and immutable. if a heterosexual has a constitutional civil right to marriage, a homosexual must, as well.

No, sexual orieintation is not analogous to race, even as recognized by the Supreme Court, and sexual orientation is not recognized under Strict Inerpretation as either a Suspect Class, or even Quasi-Suspect class, as it is not an immutalble and/or highly visible trait.

the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. federal recognition of some legal marriages and rejection of other legal marriages is not equal protection.

also, civil rights are a fabricated corruption? what?


Civil rights | LII / Legal Information Institute


it's supported by the fourteenth amendment.

And "equal protection" of the 14th Amendment does not relate to equal outcome, and does not guarantee equal outcome under different terms. Equal protection only applies to individual rights, not collective of paired rights, and gays already have the option of the same terms being applied ot them, and reject those terms.

Civil Rights are a fabricated corruption of the 14th Amendment, resulting from the Civil War, and are a direct corruption of rights prohibiting the federal government from influence upon those rights, as well as prohibiting the federal government from using them as corrupt on-demand licenses against private individuals and businesses, none of which is legit under the Constitution.

 

[calamity]

Even scholars recognized that there was nothing in the majority opinion about the Constitution! Read the comments from those scholars I posted previously. While referencing the 5th amdnement "due process" there is not a due process argument, and the Majority does not advance one. Neither is DOMA involving equal protection, and the majority certainly did not couch its opinion in terms of equal protection.

If this was about the Constitution, then the majority would have recognized that under Separation of Powers, that Congress was entirely within the scope of its legitimate constitutional authority to enact DOMA.

Indeed Scalia even references the "majority" of Congress that voted for DOMA, and how the court is assuming the same enmity to the human race by them as well, despite the fact it was passed by overwhelming majorities in each house, 85–14 in the Senate, and 342–67 in the House, and signed by Clinton.

Not only that, but Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14, and Democratic Representatives voted for it 118 to 65.

DOMA wasn't a partisan issue, and wasn't a violation of any rights. DOMA was a rather ordinary bill, and wasn't any reach at all by the Congress, and did not 'reach into' any territory not its own.

In Contrast the Court under Kennedy has made itself the Supreme Arbiter of 300 million people. has acted without any jurisdiction to do so, without any legitimate issue being before the Court, and did so from a decided emotional perspective which many legal commentators have recognized to be an emotionally and judicially "immature" opinion, certainly unsupported by Constitutional reference. .


The fact is that the majority opinion was only an emotional argument, with that argument unsupported by the Constitution, and the Courts action and process itself unsupportable by that Document. In fact you will search Kennedy's opinion vain for clear constitutional reasoning; it ain't there. It was entirely an emotional argument made by the majority in which they ascribe all who stood against the decision as having having gay animus.

Scalia specifically takes issue with Kennedy's, and the other four, emotionalism and utter lack of judicial approach in stating:

"Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament."​

Nonsense. If same sex marriage was really about the rights of all americans, as written in the Constitution, and not an exercise of phobia from gay-haters, Gays would be getting married in all 50 states.

 

[Trip]

Nonsense. If same sex marriage was really about the rights of all americans, as written in the Constitution, and not an exercise of phobia from gay-haters, Gays would be getting married in all 50 states.

If gay marriage were truly equal to marriage, then surely even only one society would have recognized gay marriage, rather than heterosexual marriage, but none has done so throughout all of mankind's history.


But the fact is that gay unions do not possibly procreate to produce offspring, and therefore no society has any vested interest in those gay unions being stable and enduring commitments, as they do with heterosexual unions.


You yourself are undeniably the result of the heterosexual production processes, as is every person on the face of the earth, which is overwhelming proof of the difference between gay unions and marriage.

But this is straying far from the subject of the OP, which has to do with the fact that the Supreme Court had no legitimate authority to hear this case, having no jurisdiction, and no authority to invalidate DOMA, which was solely federal law in regard to federal process, entirely legitimate and outside the Court's authority by Separation of Powers.