While I just said that my reading of Lawrence, particularly the wording, "The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons." seems to go along with the idea of gay marriage, yes, I figured that the Bowers decision of 1986 might indeed fall some day, and we got to that day last year.
As for stare decisis, when a court wants to keep something the same, it argues stare decisis, when it wants to do something different, it says that stare decisis did not apply in this case. Again, language from Lawrence,"Stare decisis is not an inexorable command." To a judge, especially a high court justice, words mean whatever they want them to mean on a given day. I guess the same is true of the 10th Amendment.
I hope for the day when stare decisis is set aside to reverse Roe vs. Wade, don't you?
Stare decisis does not apply to Roe any more than it would to Dred Scott. But I am not arguing the states rights opinion. You are.
I don't find the right to life a matter that can be left up to individual states any more than I think they can decide to kill the babies of conservatives.
The point is that marriage can not be a state issue because the federal government is intertwined inextricably with marriage.
The notion that a couple of guys wed in Mass and then move to Alabama not having SCOTUS backing based on equal protection is one I find ridiculous on its face.
Maybe. Then again, maybe not. Civil marriage is a matter of public policy and record.