Keep in mind that the primary arguments in the DOMA case weren't "poor gays" but rather states' rights arguments. Determining the line between federal and state issues isn't always obvious or a simple matter of "calling a spade a spade".
You're absolutely right, but if I understand the argument correctly, that only substantiates my point.
First, forgive me as I'm no longer in the US, so I don't have the full coverage as I did. The message that I received was that DOMA was deemed "unconstitutional". So, unless I'm missing something, it's either unconstitutional because it was federally mandated or unconstitutional due to the restrictions of marriage. Given that we have a ton of federal mandates, my assumption is that 'twas the latter.
So, if the main arguments used were that it should be a state's decision on the rulings of marriage, then it completely contradicts the aforementioned. That essentially says, "The restrictions of marriage is unconstitutional, but only at the federal level, it's ok at the state level"
I'm sure that I'm missing something, so please expound.
The constitution has become a political tool as opposed to outlining rules and supporting the people.
implies it was ever any different. Politics is why we have a bicameral legislature.
'Twas indeed different. I'm not a history buff, but you're allowing the negative connotation of "politics" skew reality. There is a difference between laying the foundation of rules and regulations for a nation vs purposely interpreting the aforesaid rules in a way to bolster personal motives. I won't deny that anyone ever did the latter during the creation and amendments of our constitution; however, it has become
more of a political tool as opposed to outlining rules and supporting the people.