When the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (\u201cDOMA) many people assumed that the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was protected by the constitution.\u00a0 They should have read the actual opinion.<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/2013\/06\/26\/supreme-court-doma-decision_n_3454811.html<\/a><\/p>\n “The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,\u201d Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”<\/i><\/strong><\/i><\/b><\/p>\n The court did not rule that gay marriage was protected by the constitution.\u00a0 It ruled that the Fifth Amendment prevented the federal government from overturning a state law approving gay marriage.\u00a0 I always assume that Supreme Court rulings are very carefully crafted.\u00a0 Notice that the court did not say that The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) did not serve a legitimate purpose.\u00a0 If anything, Kennedy implied that DOMA did serve a legitimate purpose.\u00a0 He just said that even for a legitimate purpose the federal government cannot take away a right specifically granted by the State.<\/p>\n Who knows?\u00a0 This court may decide that gay marriage is protected by the Fifth Amendment.\u00a0 That is obviously possible.\u00a0 But they may also decide that this issue belongs to the states and not the federal government.\u00a0 I suspect that the Supreme Court is reluctant to decide on gay marriage either way.\u00a0 That would be consistent with the DOMA decision.<\/p>\n In his dissent to the DOMA ruling, Judge Scalia wrote that federal Judges would misinterpret the decision as requiring states to approve gay marriage. \u00a0\u00a0He was right about that.\u00a0 A whole bunch of federal judges have done exactly that.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court just put a hold on the decision to strike down Utah\u2019s gay marriage ban.\u00a0 Some may ask why Utah matters.\u00a0 The reason is standing.\u00a0 The Supreme Court rejected the challenge to the decision overturning California\u2019s Proposition 8 because the plaintiffs did not have standing.\u00a0 The State of California, under the brilliant leadership of Governor Brown, refused to appeal the decision by one federal judge to overturn Proposition 8.\u00a0 But in Utah, the state government is appealing the decision regarding gay marriage in Utah and the state of Utah most definitely does have standing.<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.idahostatejournal.com\/news\/local\/utah-asks-high-court-to-stop-gay-marriages-justice-sotomayor\/article_a6a4a1e6-72d4-11e3-930f-001a4bcf887a.html<\/a><\/p>\n It is particularly interesting to look at California\u2019s Proposition 8.\u00a0 Proposition 8 changed the California constitution.\u00a0 To put this in perspective ask yourself a very simple question.\u00a0 \u201cSuppose that voters in California had passed referendum changing the state constitution to approve gay marriage.\u201d\u00a0<\/strong> Now suppose a judge overturned that referendum by ruling that gay marriage is unconstitutional.\u00a0 The gay rights community would have been outraged.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Governor Brown would have definitely appealed that decision.<\/p>\n Both Governor Brown and Attorney General Harris had a duty to defend Proposition 8, whether they agreed with it or not.\u00a0 They refused, because they didn\u2019t like Proposition 8. That is typical of the liberal left.\u00a0 If you don\u2019t agree with them, your opinion does not matter.<\/p>\n Just a few weeks ago, most people believed that nationwide gay marriage was inevitable.\u00a0 There were all these court decisions with the main stream media wildly promoting gay marriage.\u00a0 A lot of people, who are opposed to gay marriage, basically gave up in despair.\u00a0 I have a message for you.\u00a0 This has the potential to change everything.<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/story\/news\/nation\/2014\/01\/06\/supreme-court-halts-utah-gay-marriage\/4338799\/<\/a><\/p>\n I would not be surprised by a Supreme Court decision that refuses to rule on same-sex marriage at all.\u00a0 They just may rule that the decision is up to the states.<\/p>\n One final thought.\u00a0 A gay couple got married on a float during the Rose Parade.\u00a0 Six weeks ago I would have bet my bottom dollar that all of the networks covering the Rose Parade would have covered the ceremony.\u00a0 But that was prior to the Duck Dynasty backlash. Multiple TV stations cut away from the gay marriage ceremony and went to commercial.\u00a0 I doubt that this was a coincidence.<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.pasadenastarnews.com\/lifestyle\/20140101\/tv-stations-cut-away-from-gay-marriage-during-rose-parade<\/a><\/p>\n It is just possible that, with regard to gay marriage, we are back to square one.<\/p>\n TDM<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (\u201cDOMA) many people assumed that the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was protected by the constitution.\u00a0 They should have read the actual opinion. http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/2013\/06\/26\/supreme-court-doma-decision_n_3454811.html “The federal statute is … Continue reading