Use the lesson from the Dobbs decision as a guide here. Don’t get federal courts involved in these arguments over moral and legal questions that can’t feasibly be resolved in courtrooms. Instead, push to have the federal courts recognize the supremacy of state laws by getting the federal government out of these matters entirely.
In the federal courts, the issue shouldn’t be that “marriage is between one man and one woman.”
Instead, the argument should be that the word “marriage” doesn’t appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution — which means it is entirely a matter of state law.
This means the “marriage protection” movement should be willing to pursue a two-pronged approach (and their unwillingness to accept #2 means they are doomed to lose the argument):
1. Marriage is defined under state law.
2. Marriage can have no role whatsoever in federal law. That means any provision of federal laws or regulations that relates to “couples” must be struck from the books. That means no joint filing of tax returns for “married” people, not special circumstances for spouses under estate tax and inheritance laws, no special treatment of “spouses” in military housing, etc.
Interesting comment. Point #2 would take some time to absorb.
“Instead, push to have the federal courts recognize the supremacy of state laws by getting the federal government out of these matters entirely.”
I warned about this when the DOMA was being argued.
L