Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 53,766
- 16,194
Indeed. Discrimination based on animus has no defense.
Except that it isn't animus but instead concern for state's sovereignty in their interest in incentivizing the best formative environment for its wards (children's wellbeing). Children thrive best with a mother and a father. Many situations arise where children are not raised in that best environment, like single parenthood, polygamy and kids even in rare cases being raised by wolves. But that doesn't mean a state must be forced to use children as guinea pigs by incentivizing these lesser scenarios "as married".
The courts see it differently. As Justice Scalia demonstrated elegantly:
In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.
Justice Scalia
Dissent from Windsor V. US
Where Justice Scalia said that the court's position against gay marriage bans was 'beyond mistaking' in the Windsor ruling. Explicitly cited the court's recognition of such bans being motivated by 'bare....desire to harm" and concluding that it was inevitable that the reasoning of the Windsor decision would be used to overturn state gay marriage bans.
But you know better huh?
That sentiment has absolutely nothing to do with animus. I'm sure that 99% of the population could give a crap one way or the other what the cult of LGBTers are up to. It's when they want to role-play "mom and dad" to kids in marriage (kids are the most important people in marriage and cannot vote to affect their surroundings) that people have a problem with it.
Save that 55% of the population supports gay marriage. You simply ignore any poll that contradicts you. Just like you ignore any court ruling that contradicts you. Just like you ignore any study that contradicts you.
But the SCOTUS isn't obligated to ignore any of it just because its inconvenient to your argument.