We conclude that the marriage ban does not meet the rational basis test for either due process or equal protection. -Chief Justice Marshall
Applying that deferential [rational basis] test in the manner it is customarily applied, the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from the institution of civil marriage passes constitutional muster. -Justices Sosman, Spina, Cordy
This case is not about government intrusions into matters of personal liberty. It is not about the rights of same-sex couples to choose to live together, or to be intimate with each other, or to adopt and raise children together. It is about whether the State must endorse and support their choices by changing the institution of civil marriage to make its benefits, obligations, and responsibilities applicable to them. While the courageous efforts of many have resulted in increased dignity, rights, and respect for gay and lesbian members of our community, the issue presented here is a profound one, deeply rooted in social policy, that must, for now, be the subject of legislative not judicial action. -Justices Cordy, Spina, Sosman
Which opinions do you find show more judicial restraint?
"If it did" holds no legal water...it does not. As a matter of fact, the Constitution males no mention of gender at any point that comes to mind, it does use the term "person" or "persons" about 22 times.
"Those references will be made in the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which will be used as a political football to help elect Republicans."
You all never cease to amaze me.
Most people spend their time in here bitching about how government is the problem and not the solution, and how the Feds are taking powers that do not belong to them, but the moment a problem arises, the first thing you all think of doing is growing the power of the Federal government.
You think that the solution to this issue you have with the definition of marriage is to give the power to define marriage to the Federal government?
Remember the 18th. Amendment?
Give the Feds the power to define marriage, and eventually, they will use that power to do the exact opposite of what you want done.
I believe that the judicially correct decisions are those made with individual "persons" in mind. The decision that ended the recount nightmare in Florida was called Judicial activism by many, and the dissenting opinions pointed out that fact, however, everyone in here praised the activism, and poo-pooed the dissents.