Again? It's right there in Section 1.
"Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."What this means is that when the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the states are in conflict, Congress gets to decide the matter. When states diverge on how contracts are applied, Congress gets to decide the matter. Marriage is a contract.
Upon this basis, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, so that one state (Hawaii, in this case), can't pass a marriage law that overturns the marriage laws in the other 49 states.
There is no Constitutional time bomb, this is exactly how the Founders intended the Constitution to work.
You've posted so much that is factually wrong on this thread, you might want to consider taking a break. Error is not a good foundation for sound reasoning. You didn't understand the current state of California consenting adult law, nor the origins of the Defense of Marriage Act, nor even when Al Gore was in the Senate or the identity of the Vice President during the Clinton Administration.
You don't understand the application of Article IV, Section 1 to the DMA. You don't understand that the SCOTUS didn't strike down the Texas sodomy law on the basis of the right of privacy. All you know is that it came up with a decision supporting homosexual sodomy that feels right to you, so you're scrambling fruitlessly to cobble together some justification for their reinvention of the judicial wheel.
In doing so, you recapitulate their straw-clutching error, making things up as you go along, bouncing from one logical box to another and posting things that aren't true, never considering the possibility that the world isn't going to be the way you want it to be, simply because that's the way you think you want it.
Untethered from tradition, common sense and the Constitution, you trample all three in pursuit of a predetermined outcome. When the destructiveness is observed, you take the position, incredibly, that tradition, common sense and the Constitution are driving us to a Constitutional crisis. To the extent we're in such a crisis, it's due to the anti-Constitutional rulings of activist judges such as you've been cheering these past few days.
Like you, the Supreme Court determined an outcome that pleased them. Then they "discovered" a new "right" to the "expression of one's essential humanity" in order to foist their agenda on the nation. Not a single person in this forum, nor anywhere in the country, has any clear idea as to what a right to the expression of one's essential humanity means, nor what its limits might possibly be. Its vagary is absolutely opaque. Doesn't matter though, because this is a moment for the self-congratulation of the self-anointed "enlightened."
Like you, the Supreme Court is flinging crap without consideration of its validity or consequences. In a final, fitting bit of convergence, after your arguments have unraveled, you imagine a Constitutional crisis based on your relentless misunderstandings and errors, and attempt to use that to bluff your point, when if fact Constitutional crises are arising from the willingness of the SCOTUS not to adhere to the Constitution, most recently to justify their decision to strike down the Texas sodomy law
You applaud the real Constitutional crisis, because it suits you to do so.
