This does not mean that, in the future, the court will decide that denying a state the power to prohibit SSM's serves no legitimate purpose. The court suggests the opposite - that denying a state the power to prohibit SSM's would serve the legitimate purpose of enforcing equal protection under the law, which is a legitimate purpose of the federal govt.
Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
The Psychology of Persuasion
If this is exactly how it ends up being, I am totally fine with it. My biggest concern is that it gets overturned to pave a long, verbose road of forcing it completely in the other direction - thus wasting more time and money.From what i can tell from both rulings, State's will not be compelled to give out marriage licenses to SS couples. Even if the full faith and credit clause forces state's to recognize SSM's from other states, they'll still have the ability to not issue marriage certificates to SS couples.
I'm against any federal law about marriage, but I'd rather that DOMA stands as-is than to attempt a full reversal and 180.
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
Women (Nasty or otherwise) are going to be the reason that Donald Trump is NEVER President!
The courts ALWAYS rules based on precedent. If you think this decision only affects gays in a vacuum then you're beyond professional help.