Scalia was falling all over himself to claim that it was a disaster to allow gay people the same rights as straight people because if we were to do so, then it would require that we allow gay people the right to marry.
The bulk of the argument in favor of Lawrence vs Texas had almost nothing to do with homosexuality, except for Texas' defense. What Lawrence v Texas boiled down to was a question of the right to
privacy in one's own home, something that is unambiguously protected by the Constitution.
It is therefore irrelevant to the current discussion. The fact that the accused were homosexual was merely incidental to the question of privacy.
So if Scalia thinks that the precedent set by Lawrence v. Texas is to allow same-sex marriage, what makes you think that he'll violate his own understanding of the Constitution?
I don't know. I'm not Scalia, nor have I read his dissent on the case.
There has not been any challenge to DOMA. The only challenges have been to state-level DOMAs and so far, every single case that has gone to a state court regarding such restrictions have been overturned.
In lieu of the SCOTUS' denial to take such cases. This is how it works. A case goes to a county court. County court decides. Another appeal is made, it goes to a District Court. Another appeal is made, it goes to Supreme Court of that State. Another appeal is made, it goes to either the District Court of the United States or to the SCOTUS.
So Loving v. Virginia, which dealt with a "state issue," was wrongly decided.
Is that what you're saying?
If there is a fundamental question about Constitutional law, which is
only what the SCOTUS deals with, that is what basis they have for taking a case. Again, an appeal is made, if the SCOTUS decides there is a legitimate basis for taking a case, on the pretense that some Constitutional rights might be violated, then and only then do they take the case. Otherwise, it is for the states to decide for themselves.
With Loving v. Virginia, they obviously felt there was some looming question concerning the Constitutionality of the case.
My stance is that the federal government should neither regulate personal relationships nor discriminate against individuals for their personal preferences. Laws regulating marriage should be left to the states, precisely where the Constitution places the issue.
Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions ought to be made by each state rather than imposed as a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government. Any federal laws that prevent states from determining their own standards for marriage should be repealed; the federal government should not define marriage, whether by statute or constitutional amendment.
In this way, every state would remain free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and would not be forced to adopt a contrary determination legislated by another state.
Again, have you read Loving v. Virginia? It declares that marriage is a fundamental right. Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?
I too believe marriage is a fundamental right. What constitutes a marriage is an entirely different question, and one that has to have careful consideration, otherwise it opens the door to bizarre interpretations. Only in the regard that it attempted to define marriage do I find DOMA agreeable.
If the restriction of freedom is in itself unconstitutional, then prisoners guilty of a crime are being treated unconstitutionally. Or more likely, using the blanket terminology of "freedom" needs to be understood in context.
All that really concerns me is that marriage be clearly defined to keep aberrations of it out of society, and for the government to stick its nose out of the affairs of the states. But if it goes to the Supreme Court, and they decide that homosexual marriage is a Constitutionally protected right, then so be it.
At least then we can get on with life.
“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"
™ Version 4.2
