According to the majority opinion, “Rights implicit in liberty [Due Process Clause] and rights secured by equal protection [Equal Protection clause] may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving…” – so the Equal Protection clause protects gay couples since their right is “implicit in liberty”, as demonstrated by various previous rulings. I don’t know the wording of the laws in question, but according to this opinion, it didn’t matter, since the right in question is “implicit in liberty”.
I bolded law for a reason. Please cite the law whose equal protection was being denied to gay couples.
Regards,
Shodan
According to the majority opinion, the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments:
“[N]or shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .”
and
“[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .”
According to the majority opinion, the right to marriage to another consenting adult is implicit in the right to liberty that all persons have per the 5th and 14th amendments (which are laws of the land).
There’s a whole bunch of benefits that married couples get. (Warning: PDF)
While the GAO report doesn’t appear to cite specific laws, it does cite the titles of the United States Code where said laws reside. I don’t have time to dig them out at the moment. But I still think it serves to impress the point that there are a ton of legal benefits and responsibilities conferred by marriage. That restriction actually affected which plan we chose.
One off the top of my head: health care reimbursement accounts. Even if a company extends medical coverage to a domestic partner, the IRS governs the usage of pre-tax health care reimbursement accounts such as HSAs and FSAs. My fiancee was not allowed to use my FSA until after we got married, even though she was covered by my health insurance.
You get those benefits by entering into the union of one man and one woman. Could you please cite the law denying those benefits to some couple consisting of one man and one woman?
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, yes, Shodan, we get it. You’ve cracked this whole debate wide open.
You might want to nail down those goalposts.
Check the laws regarding survivorship for example … why should the individual be refused these protections solely based on the race or sex of the deceased spouse?
“The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.”
It is the Supreme Court’s power to make this interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and none other. We the People can only change the Constitution.
Because the law defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. If the people want to extend survivor’s benefits to include people who don’t enter into such a union, they can certainly do so. The Supreme Court can’t.
Regards,
Shodan
The Supreme Court can (and did) interpret laws such as the 5th and 14th amendment to include the right to same-sex marriage.
You not liking their interpretation doesn’t mean they can’t do it. They can do it, and they did do it.
As I said, that’s not interpretation; it’s making up new laws. Which is judicial activism. Which is not legitimate, because the Constitution does not say that judges may make laws, or enumerate new rights. Since the Constitution does not say they may, they may not. That’s how it works - for the federal government, whatever is not mandatory is forbidden.
Regards,
Shodan
Your interpretation is that this is “making up new laws”, while others (including the 5 justices in the majority of the Obergefell decision) interpret this as “interpreting law”, which is legitimate and Constitutional.
That’s how it works, even if you don’t like it.
This bolded part isn’t true. The federal government has wide discretion in many areas. Many things are not mandatory, and are permissible.
We can define activism, but in practice, an activist court is a court that makes a decision you don’t like. 
Regards,
Shodan
The 14th Amendment has been around for a fairly long while, and it was Congress and the States who brought into place as I remember. So basically what you’re saying is that anytime the Courts consider a matter, it is judicial activism. The only way for the Courts to be inactive is to dismiss each and every case brought before them. In spite the clear and obvious designation of power to do so, you contend the Courts should have no power to interpret the Constitution.
Your interpretation of the Constitution leaves much to be desired if I may be so bold to say.
My resent search shows the word “may” is used 33 times in the constitution. For example:
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”
There is no mandate for Congress to “make or alter such regulations…”.
The correct version is, as I noted earlier, what is not allowed is forbidden. It needn’t be mandated, which is something different.
No, I haven’t said anything of the sort. It is judicial activism when the courts make up new laws or new rights that don’t previously exist. That is not their role.
Regards,
Shodan
The Constitution doesn’t say anything about the common law, either.
You forget the 9th. “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The Supreme Court can certainly recognize other rights of the people, that would be part of their role in interpreting the 9th Amendment. The 9th exists (along with the other 9 amendments of the BOR) BECAUSE many Founders did not want to be held to a single list of rights, they instead wanted a system of government that expressly limited the powers of the government.
[/QUOTE]
If you think this is a rebuttal, you are wrong. **John **has it correct. There are many things that are not mandatory that are permissible.