There is no delegation to the Federal government for their regulation of marriage, the power is reserved to the States.
The “equal protection” claim is bogus, no one has been denied equal protection of the law.
People can “define and express their identity” however they want, legal recognition of a group of persons is not required for any person to “define and express their identity” or to excersize their rights of association or their conjugal rights. Marriage laws do not in any way inhibit or infringe upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights.
Throughout history in every major society marriage has been between man and woman, or man and women. Now comes a novel definition. The advocates of this novel definition claim a right to legal recognition of their novel definition. There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for any purpose.
For the Supreme Court of the United States to use the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause to claim jurisdiction they must first adopt a radical and novel definition of “marriage”
Once the radical and novel definition of “marriage” has been adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States they may then make a legitimate claim of an equal protection issue, but not until they have adopted the radical and novel definition of “marriage” is there an equal protection issue.
Not until they have adopted the radical and novel definition of “marriage” may they have the fig leaf of jurisdiction thus paving the way for the subsequent illicit imposition of the radical and novel definition of “marriage”
This circular absurdity is nothing compared to the breathtaking arrogance of declaring what the law of each and all of the States shall be.
By declaring that homosexuals may, in each and every State, marry, the Supreme Court of the United States have made themselves a Super-Legislature of ALL the States collectively as a whole - a Branch of Government which does not exist under the U.S. Constitution!
Not only have the made themselves legislators, they have erected a fourth Branch of Government. A fourth Branch of Government which substitutes its legislation for that of each and all of the States.
They have legislated. They have intruded upon the independent sovereignty of the States. They have acted entirely outside the Constitution.
To conceal and “justify” their compound criminality they clothe it with an invented “fundamental right” where there is no such right.
Why should a free citizen be obligated to give constitutional dignity to a court decision of unprecedented significance that itself cannot honestly be squared with the history and intent of the 14th Amendment?
Marbury? Please.
The Left puts honest people in bad places.
You are making the classic 10th Amendment argument.
With one more judge on SCOTUS, especially one replacing Mrs. Ginsberg, it might finally fly.
In the real world however, there are no simple answers. Life, and 225 years, have forced changes in the foundational concepts that would need to be addressed.
Live would become VERY complex.