FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Regardless what activist judges and the corrupt media, which evidently includes the Guardian (UK), wants everybody to think about the Court's decision in United States v. Windsor last year, although the Court struck down DOMA's Section 3, the Court let stand Section 2 of DOMA which is a significant part of it. Section 2 exposes the media's lies about what the Supreme Court actually decided concerning the constitutionality of gay marriage.
DOMA :
This Act may be cited as the “Defense of Marriage Act”.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
One possible remedy for patriots to stop activist judges from legislating special interest rights from the bench is the following. Patriots need to work with their state and federal lawmakers to make punitive laws which require judges to do the following in every case which deals with the Constitution. Judges need to be required to promptly, clearly and publicly reference all constitutional clauses which justify their case decisions to the satisfaction of voters. And judges who fail to do so should be minimally permanently removed from the bench, possibly serving some jail time.
Also, with the exception of the federal entities indicated by the Constitution's Clauses 16 & 17 of Section 8 of Article I as examples, entities under the exclusive legislative control of Congress, judges should also be required to declare that the Constitution's silence about particular issue means that it is a 10th Amendment-protected intrastate power issue.
I think that the Constitution will need to be amended to likewise require justices to justify their decisions with references to specific constitutional clauses.
Unfortunately the solution you propose won’t work. It violates state separation of powers in state constitutions. Legislators cannot interfere with how judges write or reason their decisions.
“the Court let stand Section 2 of DOMA which is a significant part of it. Section 2”
Don’t be fooled by the Court’s decision. It did not affirmatively “let stand Section 2” — Section 2 was simply not at issue in the case. I think the current Court would toss Section 2 in a second, if it was presented with an opportunity to do so.