Supposed to, but after watching the Court since 2000 I'm not so sure those 99.99% are that far off. Seems to me that Scalia and others may shape their logic after the fact to rationalize decisions reached on the basis of their political views
This is true - and part of the court's job. That said, this issue *was* about letting the people decide. The ruling did not force states to offer same-sex marriage or even to recognize other same-sex marriages from other states. All it did was force the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where it was made legal by the people or their representatives. Interesting that the conservatives are up in arms about giving states more power and the federal government less power.
Which way should it be? People should decide or Supreme Court should decide? Or, you can simplify it to (let's assume the S.C. judgement are honestly based on US Constitution as it should be), People should decide even if it is against the US Constitution? I think we all know the answer to this. (And People can change the US Constitution as it has been done before). I do agree with you somewhat on the equal treatments (single vs marry). Economic reasons seem inadequate for justification of unequal treatments. But I haven't really thought through that yet, so don't have a firm take on it.
Conservatives spend forever haranguing on and on about the moral benefits of marriage, it's what America is based on. It's fair enough if you don't believe that two committed individuals need a marriage to formalize their loving and supporting relationship, but sadly, the government does believe that. Until that changes, exclusion from marriage for all eligible and willing individuals is unequal protection of the laws.
As we've seen in recent years most conservatives are only interested in federalism when it meets their own moral positions.
You must be part of the 0.1% that can look at people straight in the face and say Scalia is acting in good faith on his purported desire for more power to the people, after a ruling where he essentially struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act (an act of Congress), and then another in which he determined that individuals have no legal standing to defend laws they themselves ushered in, if state actors do not take up that mantle. that's quite an audacious statement you're making, especially as you seem to want to differentiate yourself from the "ignorant"...you may have missed one or two landmark rulings by Scalia that went alongside DOMA.
There is a rational basis for this differentiation. Single people, and committed couples, are two different beasts. There is no such rational basis for the differentiation between homosexual couples and heterosexual ones. This is what Justice Kennedy was partially arguing (his famous animus statement---thank you Kagan for bringing that up!). This is why DOMA fails even on a rational basis review, but not discrimination between singles and couples---where there is a rational basis. Is that clear now?
