Unless of course it is preferential treatment for school admission.
“As an ordained U.U. Reverend, I suggest not fireworks, but sackcloth and ashes for this Fourth of July!”
Regarding this post, I haven’t yet read any Court opinions, only the article referenced in the OP. But regarding both issues, I woudn’t be surprised if the Court didn’t directly reference any of the following constitutonal statutes mentioned below, possibly an effort to make sure that low information voters remain low information voters with respect to its decisions.
First, for years I had predicted that the Supreme Court would find DOMA unconstitutional and I reluctantly side with the justices who defended the Constitution in making that decision.
As I have mentioned in related threads, the Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage automatically makes marriange a 10th Amendment protected state power issue. (DOMA wasn’t protected by 10A; Prop. 8 is protected by 10A) So Congress was politicking when it made a law (DOMA) which included the word marriage.
Note that DOMA essentially helped incumbent lawmakers to win votes from Christians for another term in office, Christians who likely don’t understand the Founding States division of federal and state govvernment powers.
Next, DOMA was also arguably a religious test for being a federal employee, such tests prohibited by Clause 3 of Article VI.
Regarding Prop. 8, note the line from the article “the case was dismissed for being improperly before the Court.” Consider that the Court volunteered what is arguably a similar technical excuse not to hear Terri Schiavo’s case, “division of powers,” when her family and supporters asked for help from the Court to stop the plug from being pulled.
So with Prop. 8 as well as Terri, although the effective outcomes of the Court’s decisions concerning these cases are constitutional under 10A, activists justices arguably continue to weaken 10A by not explicitly mentioning 10A, offering technical excuses instead, possibly an effort to make sure that low information voters in all states remained constitutionally ignorant as I had indicated before.
The bottom line about pagan activist justices is the following imo. If Christians would study the relatively few pages of the Constitution like they study the Holy Bible, then they’d be able to use the Constitution to be “fire preventers” with respect to preventing attacks on constitutional freedoms by unconstitutonally big federal government, as opposed to now being “fire fighters,” continually fighting with the feds in the courts as a consequence of not knowing division of federal and state powers.
Mea culpa.
I haven’t seen any opinions yet, and now that I’ve had time to better read the article referenced in OP, the Supreme Court didn’t do its job to protect state sovereignty from pro-gay activist state dudges. So California’s legal majority voters were wrongly ignored.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction (emphasis added). In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.In fact, one Supreme Court case where a private citizen sued a state is Minor v. Happersett.
Placemark.
If DOMA was so popular when Congress passed it, then why did Congress make a constitutionally questionable federal law when it could have petitioned the states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution which defined marriage as a one man, one woman union?
On the other hand, by today’s standards, rather the lack thereof, of PC word meanings, Congress would have needed the foresight to defined what a man and woman are in such an amendment.
As a side note to amending the Constitution instead of making federal laws based on powers which the states have never delegated to Congress via the Constituton, please consider the following. Given FDR’s social spending ideas were so popular, I have never figured out why he didn’t encourage Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution which would have granted Congress the specific powers that it needed to establish FDR’s otherwise constitutionally indefensible New Deal spending programs.
There is ‘a time’ when all good men must come to the aid of their country.