I agree. There are federal issues involved and it did keep it in the states. We also know Obama and the permanent bureaucracy will abuse this new power.
What we saw was sort of the social version of the interstate commence clause. I am not thrilled with DOMA being overturned, but the law had it's major flaws, and if one looks at the Constitution, it does not give the Federal government power to play a role in marriage. Of course, the court only seems to recognize federal limitations on powers on one side of the aisle. They have allowed the government endless power everywhere else. It's a loss, but not unexpected.
“one looks at the Constitution, it does not give the Federal government power to play a role in marriage”
This is false.
Reynolds vs the US states very clearly that one man one woman has always been the law of the land in the US and that the federal government must have a consistant definition. Same principle behind Lincolns, “a house divided”.
There cannot be two laws, one saying slaves are a person, and one saying slaves are not a person. It is the same with the definition of marriage. If there are two laws, then there can be three. Sharia.
I used to hold your position until I read the Reynolds decision. As far as I know I’ve not ran into anyone else who’s actually read the decision and understood why it is crucial to this issue.
I have an article published last may talking about this precise issue. I predicted DOMA would get struck down due to faulty constitutional understanding. I maintain that now.