[MikeyB806]

The SCOTUS holding in “Windsor” that dismantled DOMA was based on the presumption that DOMA was enacted for no other reason than animus against people with sexual confusion/homosexual disorder.

A good lawyer can make the secular case, that has nothing to do with animus, for why in the whole history of civilization across all cultures, marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. Heck, a bad lawyer could do it.

[GeronL]

Our government had no interest in defending DOMA and lost on purpose

[highball]

"The SCOTUS holding in “Windsor” that dismantled DOMA was based on the presumption that DOMA was enacted for no other reason than animus against people with sexual confusion/homosexual disorder.

A good lawyer can make the secular case, that has nothing to do with animus, for why in the whole history of civilization across all cultures, marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. Heck, a bad lawyer could do it."

So why can't our lawyers do that?

It's like the Prop 8 case. The libs insisted that only animus explained the vote. And the law's oh-so-mighty defenders could only manage one witness to rebut that assertion, a witness who called Prop 8 un-American on the stand!

Judges can only rule on the evidence put before them. Only activist judges ignore the evidence in favor of their own preferences, and yet we keep hoping they'll do just that. It's pathetic, and we need to learn from these mistakes before we lose the next fight, too.