This is a good sign for protectors of marriage; if the Court believed that the DOMA case had rendered laws against sodomite marriage unconstitutional, it would not have halted the “marriages.”
As I understand it, the DOMA case found DOMA, and only DOMA, unconstitutional on the basis that it was enacted because of animus towards homosexuals. But that doesn’t mean that there are not Constitutional reasons to prohibit marriage; it just means that those reasons weren’t used in the enactment of DOMA (as far as the legislative history indicated).
As most of us know here, marriage was not created with the intention to prohibit homosexuals from participating. Indeed, there can be no such thing as homosexual “marriage” by definition, and so there can be no prohibition on something that doesn’t exist.
Men and women are capable of doing things for society and the species that two dudes or two lesbos cannot. That’s common sense for the vast majority of the world, but when it comes to leftists, there is no such thing as common sense.
Here’s hoping for a SCOTUS ruling that marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman is Constitutional. And maybe that will be the first step toward reversion the Lawrence v Texas case that made butt-effing acceptable recreational activity.
Fascinating take. I had never used that argument before and it makes perfect sense. Thank you.