"Progressives aren't really progressive. They're regressive, all the way back to Sodom and Gomorrah." - author unknown
No, you have not. To make a coherent argument that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, first you'd at least have to understand the basics of the issues of constitutional law involved. You've made very clear you have no idea about them.I've done that several times.
The decisions that matter on this issue are Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and U.S. v. Windsor. I've studied them all, but I doubt you've read even one. If you did, you can't have understood the arguments. I really don't care what the federal appeals courts have said on this, because they are taking their cues from Justice Kennedy's sleight-of-hand arguments in the Supreme Court decisions I listed. But the Supreme Court won't base its decision, whenever it comes, on what a lower court said.I don't think you've even read their decisions, because I've never seen you post a single quote from any decision and provide any rebuttal whatsoever.
In states where most people want to include same-sex partners in their marriage laws, they're entirely free to do that, and some have. But a shift in public opinion on an act can never create a constitutional right to that act where none exists.The American people are on the side of same-sex marriage. Public opinion on that subject has shifted rapidly and continues to do so.
Not in my case, at least. When I call a decision judicial fiat, it is because the court that made it has not articulated legal reasons for it. The classic example of this is Roe v. Wade, a notoriously arbitrary decision which contains no legal reasoning whatever. But Justice Kennedy's confused ipse dixit in Lawrence and Windsor comes pretty close.that's just what people say when they disagree with a judge's decision but can't actually articulate any legal reason that the judge's decision is wrong.
You have it just backward. This is about a minority--homosexuals and federal judges who sympathize with them--trying to impose its vicious whims on the majority, at least in any state where the majority opposes changing its marriage laws to include same-sex couples. And since I don't believe that anything in the Constitution guarantees a right for homosexuals to marry each other, I believe every state should be free to decide whether to allow them to. If all fifty states chose to include same-sex partners in their marriage law, it would be fine by me--but it is their call. What does a person's vote on his state's laws and policies mean, if a court can override it by striking down those laws even when most of a state's residents favor them?The vicious whims of the majority can easily be used to suppress the rights of the minority, which is exactly what you are advocating here.
What I will never accept, any more than I do with Roe v. Wade (or what's left of it), is the use of substantive due process by the Supreme Court to deprive majorities in many states of their fundamental right to vote for laws and policies they think best. It violates one of the foundational principles of our Constitution and the government it creates--the separation of powers. The Court itself acknowledged as much after it had put an end to the three decades' worth of what is usually called the "Lochner" or "substantive due process" era, which ran from Lochner in 1904 to 1937.
However much the Court swears to have seen the evil of its ways during that period, and however reluctant it has been since 1937 to question the fairness of state regulation of economic matters, it hasn't seemed the least reluctant to second-guess the states' regulation of matters involving families and sex. Kennedy's opinions, especially Lawrence and Windsor, are so contrived and garbled it's anyone's guess if he's basing the holding on equal protection, substantive due process, or some new theory he's pulled out of thin air.
You haven't made any arguments to rebut. Since I don't buy the Virginia holding, which is unprecedented, I don't believe any fundamental right is involved. Therefore strict scrutiny doesn't apply, and the burden does not shift to the government to show some damned good reason for its law. No, the Supreme Court has never implied in any of its "gay" decisions, which I listed, that anything but rational basis review would apply to state marriage laws that exclude same-sex partners.You have no legal reasoning for your objections, which is why you've never made a coherent rebuttal.
In any case, I'm not making the legal brief for a state. I'm only defending the right of any state to make whatever laws it sees fit, and, unless those laws affect some fundamental right or make some suspect classification of people--neither of which the Court implied in Windsor was in play in laws defining marriage--to have them presumed valid. Justice Kennedy kept insisting in Windsor that it is for the states to define marriage. But then maybe he doesn't really mean it.