It’s clear as day to me. I guess it takes a lawyer’s “mind”.
it dosent say anything about gay marriage. There is no qualifier.
it clearly bans the state from recognizing any contract related to marriage.
“I guess it takes a lawyer’s mind”
Exactly...and a blatant disregard for the English language. The state may not create ... identical or similar to ... marriage.
In other words ... another entity (implied) ... identical or similar to marriage (not marriage itself). Only a lawyer could try to find a gray area there. Vinson and Elkins usually hires bright people. I wonder what happened in this case.