In response to:
The author hits on the most important point, that marriage (among many other things) is in the perview of the states to decide how they want to handle, this is expressly written in the 10th Amendment ("Those powers not expressly given to the federal government are reserved to the states"), unfortunately we have allowed the 10th amendment to be neutered over time and it now holds absolutely zero legal precedent.
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to tackle two gay marriage issues, those of us looking for some sweeping overall conclusions on the issue should temper our expectations.
The cases to be examined by the high court involve some specifics-- the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the range of benefits the federal government should grant in states choosing to recognize gay unions.
Both will necessarily involve some examination of what role the federal government should play in matters of gay marriage, but neither is likely to settle the biggest questions:
What is the proper...
The founders recognized that many powers not given to the Federal Governement are likewise NOT given to any State either. The States do not get to be little dictatorships. They have no more power to abridge any person's inherent rights than does the Federal Government. And as long as you're touting amendments please do not forget the 9th (the one that Alito & Scalia keep trying to erase when nobody's looking). We have ALL MANNER OF INALIENABLE RIGHTS, not just the enumerated ones.
And that is a difficult and contentious argument/discussion, with the whole choice vs nature issue, etc, etc. But just saying "leave it to the states" w/o even addressing issues of inalienable rights is simplistic & unjust.
race, color, nationality, gender, religion and disability are not differences that create substantially different classes of human beings.
however, when one union between humans cannot have the same elements as a differing union, there is substantial difference between the unions.
This makes no sense. Do we mean that only identical people have the right to equal protection?
"race, color, nationality, gender, religion and disability are not differences that create substantially different classes of human beings."
This is historically inaccurate. Color differentiated slaves from slaveholders until slavery was abolished. Gender differentiated voters from the disenfranchised until women's suffrage. We now recognize these differentiations as unenlightened, but they certainly were sufficient differences to define "substantially different classes" which were then oppressed.