DOMA decision cited to block Michigan law

[markomalley]

From EWTN News:
A federal judge has blocked a Michigan law barring domestic partner benefits for public school and local government employees, citing the Supreme Court ruling that struck down portions of the Defense of Marriage Act.

U.S. District Judge David Lawson’s June 28 ruling said it can “never be a legitimate purpose” to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. He said the plaintiffs who lost benefits or had to pay for more expensive private health insurance have a “plausible claim” that the law violates the U.S. Constitution.
Just in case any of you thought that Kennedy’s ruling was narrow.

Next step: ruling any state laws (including state constitutional amendments) that define marriage as between a man and a woman as unconstitutional. And this will be cited as the precedent.

 

[gracepoole]

Next step: ruling any state laws (including state constitutional amendments) that define marriage as between a man and a woman as unconstitutional. And this will be cited as the precedent.

I think I agree with you there.

 

[Tyrion]

Next step: ruling any state laws (including state constitutional amendments) that define marriage as between a man and a woman as unconstitutional. And this will be cited as the precedent.

Yes, one can only hope. Small steps are the best in the right direction.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Supreme court could have ruled that all state bans on homosexual marriage violate the Constitution and they didn’t. I do not know if the Supreme court would want to make an overbearing ruling that would affect all those state bans and/or force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it in those states because if you force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it. Many states do not recognize common law marriage, but some states do, is the supreme court going to force all states to recognize common law marriage?

In Wilson v Ake, a homosexual couple ‘married’ in Massachusetts and moved to Florida and they and wanted their marriage license accepted in Florida and a federal court dismissed the case. An except from the ruling:

Adopting Plaintiffs’ rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit would create a license for a single State to create national policy. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 423-24 (1979)(“Full Faith and Credit does not . . . enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.”)(quoting Pacific Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 505-06 (1939)); Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 296 (1942) (“Nor is there any authority which lends support to the view that the full faith and credit clause compels the courts of one state to subordinate the local policy of that state, as respects its domiciliaries, to the statutes of any other state.”). The Supreme Court has clearly established that “the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” Hall, 440 U.S. at 422 (citing Pacific Ins. Co, 306 U.S. at 493). Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage. See infra pp. 9-18; Fla. Stat. § 741.212.6

clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12475

 

[_Abyssinia]

Supreme court could have ruled that all state bans on homosexual marriage violate the Constitution and they didn’t. I do not know if the Supreme court would want to make an overbearing ruling that would affect all those state bans and/or force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it in those states because if you force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it. Many states do not recognize common law marriage, but some states do, is the supreme court going to force all states to recognize common law marriage?

In Wilson v Ake, a homosexual couple ‘married’ in Massachusetts and moved to Florida and they and wanted their marriage license accepted in Florida and a federal court dismissed the case. An except from the ruling:

Adopting Plaintiffs’ rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit would create a license for a single State to create national policy. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 423-24 (1979)(“Full Faith and Credit does not . . . enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.”)(quoting Pacific Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 505-06 (1939)); Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 296 (1942) (“Nor is there any authority which lends support to the view that the full faith and credit clause compels the courts of one state to subordinate the local policy of that state, as respects its domiciliaries, to the statutes of any other state.”). The Supreme Court has clearly established that “the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” Hall, 440 U.S. at 422 (citing Pacific Ins. Co, 306 U.S. at 493). Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage. See infra pp. 9-18; Fla. Stat. § 741.212.6

clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12475

 

[_Abyssinia]

Supreme court could have ruled that all state bans on homosexual marriage violate the Constitution and they didn’t. I do not know if the Supreme court would want to make an overbearing ruling that would affect all those state bans and/or force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it in those states because if you force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it. Many states do not recognize common law marriage, but some states do, is the supreme court going to force all states to recognize common law marriage?

In Wilson v Ake, a homosexual couple ‘married’ in Massachusetts and moved to Florida and they and wanted their marriage license accepted in Florida and a federal court dismissed the case. An except from the ruling:

Adopting Plaintiffs’ rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit would create a license for a single State to create national policy. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 423-24 (1979)(“Full Faith and Credit does not . . . enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.”)(quoting Pacific Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 505-06 (1939)); Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 296 (1942) (“Nor is there any authority which lends support to the view that the full faith and credit clause compels the courts of one state to subordinate the local policy of that state, as respects its domiciliaries, to the statutes of any other state.”). The Supreme Court has clearly established that “the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” Hall, 440 U.S. at 422 (citing Pacific Ins. Co, 306 U.S. at 493). Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage. See infra pp. 9-18; Fla. Stat. § 741.212.6

clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12475

 

[_Abyssinia]

Supreme court could have ruled that all state bans on homosexual marriage violate the Constitution and they didn’t. I do not know if the Supreme court would want to make an overbearing ruling that would affect all those state bans and/or force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it in those states because if you force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it. Many states do not recognize common law marriage, but some states do, is the supreme court going to force all states to recognize common law marriage?

In Wilson v Ake, a homosexual couple ‘married’ in Massachusetts and moved to Florida and they and wanted their marriage license accepted in Florida and a federal court dismissed the case. An except from the ruling:

Adopting Plaintiffs’ rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit would create a license for a single State to create national policy. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 423-24 (1979)(“Full Faith and Credit does not . . . enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.”)(quoting Pacific Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 505-06 (1939)); Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 296 (1942) (“Nor is there any authority which lends support to the view that the full faith and credit clause compels the courts of one state to subordinate the local policy of that state, as respects its domiciliaries, to the statutes of any other state.”). The Supreme Court has clearly established that “the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” Hall, 440 U.S. at 422 (citing Pacific Ins. Co, 306 U.S. at 493). Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage. See infra pp. 9-18; Fla. Stat. § 741.212.6

clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12475

 

[_Abyssinia]

Supreme court could have ruled that all state bans on homosexual marriage violate the Constitution and they didn’t. I do not know if the Supreme court would want to make an overbearing ruling that would affect all those state bans and/or force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it in those states because if you force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it. Many states do not recognize common law marriage, but some states do, is the supreme court going to force all states to recognize common law marriage?

In Wilson v Ake, a homosexual couple ‘married’ in Massachusetts and moved to Florida and they and wanted their marriage license accepted in Florida and a federal court dismissed the case. An except from the ruling:

Adopting Plaintiffs’ rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit would create a license for a single State to create national policy. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 423-24 (1979)(“Full Faith and Credit does not . . . enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.”)(quoting Pacific Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 505-06 (1939)); Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 296 (1942) (“Nor is there any authority which lends support to the view that the full faith and credit clause compels the courts of one state to subordinate the local policy of that state, as respects its domiciliaries, to the statutes of any other state.”). The Supreme Court has clearly established that “the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” Hall, 440 U.S. at 422 (citing Pacific Ins. Co, 306 U.S. at 493). Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage. See infra pp. 9-18; Fla. Stat. § 741.212.6

clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12475

 

[_Abyssinia]

Supreme court could have ruled that all state bans on homosexual marriage violate the Constitution and they didn’t. I do not know if the Supreme court would want to make an overbearing ruling that would affect all those state bans and/or force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it in those states because if you force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it. Many states do not recognize common law marriage, but some states do, is the supreme court going to force all states to recognize common law marriage?

In Wilson v Ake, a homosexual couple ‘married’ in Massachusetts and moved to Florida and they and wanted their marriage license accepted in Florida and a federal court dismissed the case. An except from the ruling:

Adopting Plaintiffs’ rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit would create a license for a single State to create national policy. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 423-24 (1979)(“Full Faith and Credit does not . . . enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.”)(quoting Pacific Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 505-06 (1939)); Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 296 (1942) (“Nor is there any authority which lends support to the view that the full faith and credit clause compels the courts of one state to subordinate the local policy of that state, as respects its domiciliaries, to the statutes of any other state.”). The Supreme Court has clearly established that “the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” Hall, 440 U.S. at 422 (citing Pacific Ins. Co, 306 U.S. at 493). Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage. See infra pp. 9-18; Fla. Stat. § 741.212.6

clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12475

 

[_Abyssinia]

Supreme court could have ruled that all state bans on homosexual marriage violate the Constitution and they didn’t. I do not know if the Supreme court would want to make an overbearing ruling that would affect all those state bans and/or force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it in those states because if you force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it. Many states do not recognize common law marriage, but some states do, is the supreme court going to force all states to recognize common law marriage?

In Wilson v Ake, a homosexual couple ‘married’ in Massachusetts and moved to Florida and they and wanted their marriage license accepted in Florida and a federal court dismissed the case. An except from the ruling:

Adopting Plaintiffs’ rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit would create a license for a single State to create national policy. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 423-24 (1979)(“Full Faith and Credit does not . . . enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.”)(quoting Pacific Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 505-06 (1939)); Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 296 (1942) (“Nor is there any authority which lends support to the view that the full faith and credit clause compels the courts of one state to subordinate the local policy of that state, as respects its domiciliaries, to the statutes of any other state.”). The Supreme Court has clearly established that “the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” Hall, 440 U.S. at 422 (citing Pacific Ins. Co, 306 U.S. at 493). Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage. See infra pp. 9-18; Fla. Stat. § 741.212.6

clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12475

 

[_Abyssinia]

Supreme court could have ruled that all state bans on homosexual marriage violate the Constitution and they didn’t. I do not know if the Supreme court would want to make an overbearing ruling that would affect all those state bans and/or force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it in those states because if you force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it. Many states do not recognize common law marriage, but some states do, is the supreme court going to force all states to recognize common law marriage?

In Wilson v Ake, a homosexual couple ‘married’ in Massachusetts and moved to Florida and they and wanted their marriage license accepted in Florida and a federal court dismissed the case. An except from the ruling:

Adopting Plaintiffs’ rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit would create a license for a single State to create national policy. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 423-24 (1979)(“Full Faith and Credit does not . . . enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.”)(quoting Pacific Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 505-06 (1939)); Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 296 (1942) (“Nor is there any authority which lends support to the view that the full faith and credit clause compels the courts of one state to subordinate the local policy of that state, as respects its domiciliaries, to the statutes of any other state.”). The Supreme Court has clearly established that “the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” Hall, 440 U.S. at 422 (citing Pacific Ins. Co, 306 U.S. at 493). Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage. See infra pp. 9-18; Fla. Stat. § 741.212.6

clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12475

 

[_Abyssinia]

Supreme court could have ruled that all state bans on homosexual marriage violate the Constitution and they didn’t. I do not know if the Supreme court would want to make an overbearing ruling that would affect all those state bans and/or force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it in those states because if you force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it. Many states do not recognize common law marriage, but some states do, is the supreme court going to force all states to recognize common law marriage?

In Wilson v Ake, a homosexual couple ‘married’ in Massachusetts and moved to Florida and they and wanted their marriage license accepted in Florida and a federal court dismissed the case. An except from the ruling:

Adopting Plaintiffs’ rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit would create a license for a single State to create national policy. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 423-24 (1979)(“Full Faith and Credit does not . . . enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.”)(quoting Pacific Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 505-06 (1939)); Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 296 (1942) (“Nor is there any authority which lends support to the view that the full faith and credit clause compels the courts of one state to subordinate the local policy of that state, as respects its domiciliaries, to the statutes of any other state.”). The Supreme Court has clearly established that “the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” Hall, 440 U.S. at 422 (citing Pacific Ins. Co, 306 U.S. at 493). Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage. See infra pp. 9-18; Fla. Stat. § 741.212.6

clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12475

 

[_Abyssinia]

Supreme court could have ruled that all state bans on homosexual marriage violate the Constitution and they didn’t. I do not know if the Supreme court would want to make an overbearing ruling that would affect all those state bans and/or force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it in those states because if you force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it. Many states do not recognize common law marriage, but some states do, is the supreme court going to force all states to recognize common law marriage?

Wilson v Ake, a homosexual couple ‘married’ in Massachusetts and moved to Florida and they and wanted their marriage license accepted in Florida and a federal court dismissed the case

clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12475

Except from the ruling from ‘full faith and credit clause’

Adopting Plaintiffs’ rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit would create a license for a single State to create national policy. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 423-24 (1979)(“Full Faith and Credit does not . . . enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.”)(quoting Pacific Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 505-06 (1939)); Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 296 (1942) (“Nor is there any authority which lends support to the view that the full faith and credit clause compels the courts of one state to subordinate the local policy of that state, as respects its domiciliaries, to the statutes of any other state.”). The Supreme Court has clearly established that “the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” Hall, 440 U.S. at 422 (citing Pacific Ins. Co, 306 U.S. at 493). Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage. See infra pp. 9-18; Fla. Stat. § 741.212.6

courses.washington.edu/gens197/Wilson.doc

 

[markomalley]

Supreme court could have ruled that all state bans on homosexual marriage violate the Constitution and they didn’t. I do not know if the Supreme court would want to make an overbearing ruling that would affect all those state bans and/or force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it in those states because if you force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it. Many states do not recognize common law marriage, but some states do, is the supreme court going to force all states to recognize common law marriage?

In Wilson v Ake, a homosexual couple ‘married’ in Massachusetts and moved to Florida and they and wanted their marriage license accepted in Florida and a federal court dismissed the case. An except from the ruling:
Adopting Plaintiffs’ rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit would create a license for a single State to create national policy. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 423-24 (1979)(“Full Faith and Credit does not . . . enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.”)(quoting Pacific Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 505-06 (1939)); Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 296 (1942) (“Nor is there any authority which lends support to the view that the full faith and credit clause compels the courts of one state to subordinate the local policy of that state, as respects its domiciliaries, to the statutes of any other state.”). The Supreme Court has clearly established that “the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” Hall, 440 U.S. at 422 (citing Pacific Ins. Co, 306 U.S. at 493). Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage. See infra pp. 9-18; Fla. Stat. § 741.212.6clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12475

With the statement, Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage,

Anthony Kennedy, in his hyper-emotional rant, has now ruled that there is no legitimate reason for opposing same-sex marriage except hate and bigotry. That is what will be cited as precedent by left-wing jurists from that point forward. The precedent you cite has been superseded.

Sadly.

I would say what I fully feel about that, but, well, I don’t care to be suspended or banned, so I’ll leave it alone.

 

[_Abyssinia]

With the statement, Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage,

Anthony Kennedy, in his hyper-emotional rant, has now ruled that there is no legitimate reason for opposing same-sex marriage except hate and bigotry. That is what will be cited as precedent by left-wing jurists from that point forward. The precedent you cite has been superseded.

Sadly.

I would say what I fully feel about that, but, well, I don’t care to be suspended or banned, so I’ll leave it alone.

I am not sure if it has been superseded if DOMA section was not struck down.

 

[_Abyssinia]

With the statement, Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage,

Anthony Kennedy, in his hyper-emotional rant, has now ruled that there is no legitimate reason for opposing same-sex marriage except hate and bigotry. That is what will be cited as precedent by left-wing jurists from that point forward. The precedent you cite has been superseded.

Sadly.

I would say what I fully feel about that, but, well, I don’t care to be suspended or banned, so I’ll leave it alone.

I am not sure if Wilson v Ake has been superseded if DOMA section 2 was not struck down.

 

[_Abyssinia]

With the statement, Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage,

Anthony Kennedy, in his hyper-emotional rant, has now ruled that there is no legitimate reason for opposing same-sex marriage except hate and bigotry. That is what will be cited as precedent by left-wing jurists from that point forward. The precedent you cite has been superseded.

Sadly.

I would say what I fully feel about that, but, well, I don’t care to be suspended or banned, so I’ll leave it alone.

I am not sure if Wilson v Ake has been superseded if DOMA section 2 was not struck down.

 

[_Abyssinia]

With the statement, Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage,

Anthony Kennedy, in his hyper-emotional rant, has now ruled that there is no legitimate reason for opposing same-sex marriage except hate and bigotry. That is what will be cited as precedent by left-wing jurists from that point forward. The precedent you cite has been superseded.

Sadly.

I would say what I fully feel about that, but, well, I don’t care to be suspended or banned, so I’ll leave it alone.

I am not sure if Wilson v Ake has been superseded if DOMA section 2 was not struck down.

 

[_Abyssinia]

With the statement, Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage,

Anthony Kennedy, in his hyper-emotional rant, has now ruled that there is no legitimate reason for opposing same-sex marriage except hate and bigotry. That is what will be cited as precedent by left-wing jurists from that point forward. The precedent you cite has been superseded.

Sadly.

I would say what I fully feel about that, but, well, I don’t care to be suspended or banned, so I’ll leave it alone.

I am not sure if Wilson v Ake has been superseded if DOMA section 2 was not struck down.

 

[_Abyssinia]

With the statement, Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage,

Anthony Kennedy, in his hyper-emotional rant, has now ruled that there is no legitimate reason for opposing same-sex marriage except hate and bigotry. That is what will be cited as precedent by left-wing jurists from that point forward. The precedent you cite has been superseded.

Sadly.

I would say what I fully feel about that, but, well, I don’t care to be suspended or banned, so I’ll leave it alone.

I am not sure if Wilson v Ake has been superseded if DOMA section 2 was not struck down.