Replies

Better, but full of relative crap.

"It has also held that the Equal Protection Clause requires, in most cases, equal application of recognized fundamental rights."

"It" is an irrational creature driven by emotions not original intent, common sense, or Natural law. Under this definition, I can marry my mom or dad.

"I don’t disagree with you- except maybe on natural law (I don’t oppose the idea but to have any real power it has to be reduced to writing, as our founders did in drafting the constitution to reflect the principles of the Declaration). Despite your efforts to smear me, I also don’t believe in a “living constitution.”"

Fundamentals are an enemy of relativism, hence there was no reason why the definition needed to be challenged pre-sexual revolution. Since fundamentals and original intent are gone, no thanks to your twisted "everything is relative" thinking, deconstruction persists as your latching to a living Constitution shines brightly with your responses.

"The U.S. constitution is silent on marriage largely because it is, and should be, a state issue since it is not a power enumerated to the Federal government (which btw may strike out DOMA even if there was no P&I clause)."

Yet the Feds regulated the standard definition of marriage under Article I Section 8 when pension laws continued on from the transition from the AOC. There is a long established traditional definition of marriage by the Feds.

The Equal Protection Clause is a absurd mess. Homosexuals were not denied equal treatment since heterosexuals were confined to marrying members of the opposite sex as well. Where is marrying for "love" enumerated at. Heck, Colonial times, arranged marriages were the norm in a lot of situations.

"A “living constitution” approach would instead say “well all prior cases said marriage is between a man and woman but society has changed to the point where that distinction shouldn’t matter anymore.” I am not, and have not, said that. Instead I am applying the law on its face to the facts. Sorry it produces an outcome you don’t find desirable."

Your "facts" are comprised of a "relative" mess, ignoring original intent, historical evaluation, libertarian trollish talking points, and yes an attachment to a "living constitution" since United States v. Windsor majority which you seem to agree with basically said "well all prior cases said marriage is between a man and woman but society has changed to the point where that distinction shouldn’t matter anymore" where no fundamental opinions are laws were documented that backed this emotional perversion. Scalia pointed that out, yet crickets from you, hmmm