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"
The issue is that marriage has traditionally been left to the states to define. The argument made as that the federal government was infringing on the traditional domain of the state by effectively saying "You can call that marriage but it's not and we won't honor it". Without exceptional cause to justify the intrusion (as in miscegenation), that provision of the law was struck down.
That it was "marriage" is somewhat secondary except that you'd need something within the state's sphere to act as a catalyst for the case. For an opposite example, the SCotUS struck down provisions from Arizona's state laws regarding immigration enforcement; immigration being the traditional sphere of the federal government and the state not having the right to interfere.
Neither case was argued so much about "marriage" or "immigration" but rather "How far can the federal/state infringe into the working of the other?" If not for the social aspect, conservatives would be hailing this as a huge win for state's rights.
I don't have a problem with the argument for individual state freedom or the conclusion. I have a problem with labeling it "unconstitutional". It is not unconstitutional to have a federal mandate. Just because "we've always done it that way" is true, doesn't make it unconstitutional to have a change.
This is similar to the states trying to push the legal time limit to have an abortion closer and closer to conception. Roe v Wade made abortion legal with limitations. Can the individual states make those limitations more restrictive? I don't know, I'm not fully familiar with the case; but you simply can't call everything that you disagree with "unconstitutional" and everything you favor "constitutional".
Am I the only one that has a good chuckle whenever someone argues that amendments shouldn't be changed, or interpreted based on 1800s culture?
If you're referring to me, then let me clarify that I'm completely for fully rewriting the constitution to accommodate the present time.
That's part of my gripe. The constitution doesn't clearly address topics that we are discussing in today's world. As a result, people want to pretend that they know what the founding fathers would have thought on the subject and it always so happen to favor whatever political motive that they have. We can eliminate most, if not all, of that ambiguity and clearly write it anew.
There must be a lot of imaginary text in that post that the rest of the world can't see because it sure as **** doesn't say what you think it says.
Here, let me quote the whole bit for you so you can read it again:
I don't see any arguments, facts or anything at all that makes me think that what you are saying is based in reality. In fact, you did quite the opposite by starting with saying that you are not a history buff before making your unsupported claim.
I figured someone would say "but you said that you're not a history buff!!" dur....
You know how people start off points like "I'm not a rocket scientist, but" or "I'm not a brain surgeon, but"? Usually the following statements indicate something that is common knowledge that it doesn't take someone of that caliber of knowledge to understand.
Clearly, you are even below that. How you can initially give a one sentence response as an argument and at the same time be incapable to understand a more in depth response in two posts is unrealistic. The answer is there. If you choose to be ignorant, that's on you. Edited, Jun 28th 2013 1:35pm by Almalieque