My Take on SCOTUS Ruling

[bedstuy]

That's completely disingenuous.

It's not a matter of legislating from the bench.  It's a matter of interpretation of the 14th Amendment. 

There have been a variety of interpretations of the 14th Amendment since it was ratified.  Some people said you could discriminate against black people as long as there was "separate but equal."  Some people said the 14th Amendment applied only to racial issues, other people said it applied to women too. 

I think the kernel at the heart of this ruling is that the government can't treat a group of people like homosexuals differently without a rational basis for discriminating.  In previous generations, that basis was the agreed upon idea that homosexuality was an immoral, sinful mental illness.  Some people still believe that and maybe you do.  But, the overwhelming consensus is that homosexuality is normal and healthy, it's just a natural sexual orientation and form of love. 

In court, the states with gay marriage bans never argued that homosexuality was evil or immoral.  They basically just hemmed and hawed the whole way from district court to the Supreme Court.  Their task was finding a rational basis for the law and they never produced one.  And, they lost.  That is the story of this case.  The consensus on the basic facts shifted and the argument was one by the same-sex marriage side.   

As for your bizarre opinion of the court's jurisdiction, that's also false.  The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear 14th Amendment challenges.  The 14th Amendment applies to the states and the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States.

[bedstuy]

It did focus on the equal protection clause, as well as the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. 

And, as far as the analysis goes, it's just two sides of the same coin.  You can conceptualize it as an affirmative right, your fundamental freedom to marry which has been established by previous cases, and restricting the government's ability to arbitrarily restrict your rights.

[bedstuy]

The argument was do states have the right to define marriage? In this case there is no answer provided by the Constitution. As a result, the court should have sided with the 10th Amendment with regards to the definition of marriage.

That's completely faulty reasoning.  Do you also disagree with Brown v. Board because the Constitution doesn't mention public schools?

The 14th Amendment applies to everything a state does.  The 14th Amendment is the Supreme Law of Texas and every other state.

[bedstuy]

The argument was do states have the right to define marriage? In this case there is no answer provided by the Constitution. As a result, the court should have sided with the 10th Amendment with regards to the definition of marriage.

That's completely faulty reasoning.  Do you also disagree with Brown v. Board because the Constitution doesn't mention public schools?

The 14th Amendment applies to everything a state does.  The 14th Amendment is the Supreme Law of Texas and every other state.

I can’t argue with Brown. That was definitely ruled correctly and supported by the 14th amendment. In this case students were denied access to certain schools because of the color of their skin.

What we are talking about is the definition of an institution. Again, this is not addressed by the Constitution and must fall under the 10th. If the argument is, “I don’t like the 10th amendment and states’ rights should be abolished” then let us make that argument in another post and discuss repealing that specific amendment. There is precedent on repealing an amendment that no longer applies to the country at present. If you want to argue the Supremacy Clause then let us do that as well. However, there is no conflict between state law and federal law so the 10th amendment has to apply. It can’t be ignored while it is still on the books. 

Are schools mentioned in the Constitution?  You didn't address that.