Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

Didn't realize Old Tony was a woman.

 

Old_Toni

 

Could I be any deeper in your head?

 

That's what sh...you said???

 

Using gender-specific pronouns is not outing. Revealing a poster's gender is not revealing the poster's identity. It is comical to suggest otherwise. I truly hope I simply misread your post.

 

What the hell did I do?

 

So let me get this straight: Two years ago when the issue was the Defense of Marriage act before them, the progressives on the court said that marriage was an issue for the states. Now, when it suits their wishes, they decide that it marriage is an issue for the federal government to decide. Is it too much to ask the court's progressives to be judges and not legislators?

 

They did not say that. The issue was not before them.

 

Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

 

The issue before the Court in US v. Windsor was the constitutionality of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, which provided a federal definition of marriage, in conflict with the definitions in the State of NY, among other states.

While recognizing that defining marriage was appropriately left to the states, the SCOTUS decision repeatedly noted that any statutory definition, like any other state statute, must comply with Constitutional limitation. Some quotes from the decision:

"State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967) ; but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975) ."

"Against this background DOMA rejects the long-established precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State, though they may vary, subject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next."

"The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits."

 

What she said.

(I'm assuming Amy is a woman, since after all it's normally a name used by women, and I'm not trying to out anyone by using a gender-specific pronoun.)

 

In other words, Tony either didn't understand the two cases or he did understand them and chose to try to misrepresent the situation as part of his attack on the Supreme Court.