Except it is not based on animus. Another false claim of the gay lobby.Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.
Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.
False analogy
Bullshit reply
Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.
Discrimination based on animus is the same whether race or gender...and the courts are agreeing.
Except that the courts are finding otherwise. Note from the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA- referring to animus as being the essence of DOMA
DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to
protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and
equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.
See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe,
347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitution’s guarantee of
equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional
desire to harm a politically unpopular group
cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. Department
of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534–535
(1973). In determining whether a law is motived by an
improper animus or purpose, “‘[d]iscriminations of an unusual
character’” especially require careful consideration.
Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA
cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility
of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an
important indicator of the substantial societal impact the
State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs
of its people. DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual
tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of
marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the
benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal
recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a
law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class.
The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States. The history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence