re: #44 goddamnedfrank

States repeatedly sought to define marriage in a purposefully discriminatory manner that the courts have repeatedly found to have violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the US Constitution.

And the kicker is that many judges at the lower levels are relying on Scalia’s dissent to rule the SSM bans unconstitutional. It is inherently discriminatory, and it doesn’t diminish heterosexual marriage, and it doesn’t mean that a given church must marry two people (as is the case now - where some churches refuse to marry on grounds of intermarriage - different sects, let alone SSM). It means that secular government can’t impose a religious definition of marriage, because the secular definition imparts specific rights and benefits on the married persons, which until recently a gay couple could not get (health, insurance, death benefits, hospital visitation/HIPAA, etc.).