I think it's a good thing that parts of DOMA are gone, BUT I do agree with the dissenting opinions that the court didn't have any constitutional basis to strike it down. Just because it's "right" to do so doesn't mean the justices can go and smack down whatever laws they disagree with. Part of Alito's dissenting opinion (much tamer than Scalia's rant - which had some decent points nonetheless*) argued that, under the constitution as it is currently, the court has no authority to define marriage, and that it must be left to lawmakers to do so.
Change the laws or change the constitution, until then I do feel like the court overstepped here.
But I also think the end result is a good thing.
I'm both disappointed and pleased.
*Scalia did point out that in two previous courts the same case was tried, both the plaintiff and the U.S. agreed with the lower courts' verdicts. He thought it rather odd - or perhaps infuriating - that the SCOTUS chose to hear a case in which every party was already satisfied by the outcome not once but twice.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
