That's fine. In the meantime, SCOTUS needs to remand these kinds of cases to the states where they belong.
Depends on the merits of the individual case.
I would think that in many, if not most, instances you would be correct, but I can imagine quite a few circumstances in which such questions impinge on the legitimate constitutional role of the general government.
After all, the ultimate self-stated purpose of that Constitution is “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity,” and it is absolutely impossible to fulfill such a purpose if the natural family has been destroyed.
The institution of marriage is the most fundamental God-given building block of our whole civilization. This is true governmentally, societally, and even economically.
It’s a matter of self-preservation.
As they rightfully say, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. It cannot be.
But, in any case, at no time should any officer of the general government, in any branch, recognize marriage as being anything except that which it is and has always been, the joining together of one man and one woman.
To do so is to have stepped into the realm of chaos, unreality, and lawlessness.
Let me remind you that the framers themselves made it clear that the Constitution did not pretend to delineate, to enumerate, every right.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Few matters deal with natural right more fundamentally than the question of natural marriage.
Just because the framers didn’t foresee that their offspring could depart so far from morality that such things would even be in question that doesn’t change the nature of basic wrong and right.