We are talking about the legalities of marriage. THAT'S what this is about. In that case, the state certainly has the power to have jurisdiction over the licensing and legalities around marriage. THIS is the context that we are discussing. So... point us to anything that states that procreation is a requirement to get a marriage license, or where procreation has any legal standing in marriage. If you can't then your position is refuted. Go.The court decision recognizes this fact but only when convenient, somehow imagining that recreation of marriage is a "state power" when States have no original jurisdiction over marriage, any more than the federal government does itself. It is a social structure, and neither the federal government, nor the states, are provided the authority to exercise social engineering to redesign it by their tyrannous dictate.
Oh, so now you are talking about legalities? Guess what? DOMA was struck down. You were wrong.This is precisely the sort of tyrannous government the founders sought to prohibit, and instituted into the Constitution.
No, I am on target and you, of course were wrong, not only in the decision, but in pretty much everything you said about the Constitutionality of the issue.This is the second time I've had to correct you on what's actually in the court decision you're pontificating about. That decision was nether hinging on state's rights, which no were nowhere denied, nor on the full faith and credit clause, which I've already indicated the court entirely ignored the impact of, so that it could condemn Congress' legitimate authority in writing DOMA!
Yes, it is IN FACT the federal government's place to legislate and dictate "things like this", as this 'thing" is exclusively related to Federal ISSUES and FEDERAL LAW, and it is extremely asinine to assert otherwise.... but don't worry, you're actually surpassed by a corrupt and hypocritical Court, as I've already pointed out, but you are apparently incapable of addressing directly.
Before you continue to expose your ignorance on this decision, why don't you actually go and read it, instead just pulling what you imagine might be in that decision, out of ...well, thin air.