[Alberta's Child]

I may not like the end result, but it's hard to imagine what role the U.S. Supreme Court has in any of these state issues.

If a state wants to rule that a relationship between five men, three women, two dogs and fifteen parakeets constitutes a "marriage," then so be it. This is where the Court's refusal to take these cases is consistent with their prior DOMA ruling. There is simply no provision of the U.S. Constitution that establishes a Federal role in marriage law.

P.S. This is why even "originalist" justices like Scalia and Thomas refused to take the case.

[marktwain]

” If a state wants to rule that a relationship between five men, three women, two dogs and fifteen parakeets constitutes a “marriage,” then so be it. This is where the Court’s refusal to take these cases is consistent with their prior DOMA ruling. There is simply no provision of the U.S. Constitution that establishes a Federal role in marriage law.

P.S. This is why even “originalist” justices like Scalia and Thomas refused to take the case.”

That does not make any sense to me. It is federal courts striking down state laws that we are talking about. The Supreme Court is allowing the federal appellate courts tell the states what to do on marriage.