Exactly my point. If the state of California cannot define marriage as a man and a woman, then how can any other state, or the federal government, define marriage in that manner?
Another interesting point is that, after Prop. 8 passed, the activists appealed to the California Supreme Court. The same Supreme Court which had ruled for same-sex marriage in California decided that it was legal and proper to amend the constitution of the state to define marriage. Even though the Prop. 8 vote overturned their opinion, the judges on the Supreme Court said it was legal to do so.
So, then the activists decided to appeal in federal court, since the state court affirmed Prop. 8.
And I can’t get away from the fact that these judges are saying that as a matter of federal law, a state can’t define marriage as a man and a woman, when federal law itself so defines marriage. This is Alice in Wonderland or Orwell’s 1984 territory. And to liberals, it’s all ok as long as done in pursuit of a liberal cause.
Well... judges don’t generally address laws that aren’t implicated in the case before them. The couples who went before Judge Walker sued for the right to marry in CA, not for joint filing on their tax returns.
Just because they don’t mention DOMA doesn’t mean they wouldn’t strike that law down too if it were before them.