Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:41 pm
The state argued that the Windsor opinion clearly upholds the rights of state voters and legislatures to define marriage and that the federal government must recognize the states’ rights to do so.
In an ideal world where very few of a couple's rights hinge on marriage - especially no federal rights - I would agree. But we don't live in that world. In this messed up world in which we live, there are very many essential rights that do count on that one word - including tons of federal rights - so no the states shouldn't get to define it. Not as long as it's tied into so many other non-state issues.