Yes indeed, the US District Court (federal) located in California.

In my tiny mind, it would be impossible for a California Court to find the California Constitution to be unconstitutional.

Without divorce, without dependents, they ended up with all the financial assets — tax code be damned.

The last thing they wanted was to be hitched — to anyone in such a manner that divorce would be required to severe the bond.

ALL of their straight acquaintances had lost their wallets to family or divorce.

Gay men disdain gay marriage.

The only faction that plays up ‘gay’ marriage is the lesbian crowd. Where lesbian marriage has been permitted, childless divorce has soon erupted. The partners soon discover the perils of a joint checking account… which totally overwhelms the impact of form 1040.

The normal progression of events soon turns lesbian partnerships into virtually one-income ‘families;’ with the dyke bringing in the bacon. (typically) The submissive then ‘makes house’ — a childless home — and audits soap operas full time.

This dynamic is hard wired into the human brain — deep down at the brain stem. It can’t be thought around/ reasoned with. It just is.

Those that have sincerely wanted to avail themselves of the federal benefits of marriage

Yet another case of government causing problems. If we had something like a flat tax, there would be any such thing as “federal benefits of marriage”.

On the amnesty for illegal aliens front, Rubio said this: “I got involved because I knew that if conservatives didn’t get involved in shaping this legislation, it would not have any border security reforms our nation desperately needs,” Rubio said.

There you go. The rationale for all the Collaborators. “if conservatives didn’t get involved in shaping this legislation . . .” IOW, they’ve given up the fight on issue after issue, and are now just . . . tweaking the Leftist programme.

Depends upon whether you’re referring to the narcissism of appearance or the extreme narcissism of egotistical preoccupation with self, Obama being a superb example.

Both gay men and lesbians adopt the male and female roles when in relationship.

Gay men who embrace the feminine role are more narcissistic about appearance than the majority of heterosexual men.

Lesbians are just the opposite, those who embrace the masculine role, reject traditional standards of feminine beauty in themselves and are less narcissistic about appearance than the majority of heterosexual women.

Gay men who embrace the masculine role and lesbians who embrace the feminine role are probably about as narcissistic as heterosexuals.

But it certainly seems today that homosexuals, a small percentage of the population, appear to have an outsized presence in positions of wealth and power. They are not demanding tolerance, but acceptance as normal. I’m not a psychologist, but I’ve read that they tend to be more narcissistic than heterosexuals.

As we know, narcissists in positions of power can be problematic.

Homosexuality and other sexual perversions can be tolerated in societies that are peaceful and prosperous, but in a society that is splintering, disintegrating, and sinking into poverty, I would predict a rather violent backlash.

I’ve often thought that a big difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives are concerned with process, while liberals are concerned with results.

Conservatives believe that there are right ways and wrong ways to do things, and procedures and rules which must be followed. The Constitution must be interpreted in light of the original intent of those who wrote it. If a court decision sometimes goes in an unfavorable way, well, those are the breaks.

Liberals are willing to twist the Constitution into pretzel shapes in order to obtain the result they want. Likewise, they’re not shy about committing vote fraud to win elections. Or, as Marx put it, “the end justifies the means”.

No, we are not there… yet. Striking down DOMA will not force Christian pastors and priests to perform same sex marriages. Nor their congregations to recognize same sex marriages either.

At some point, a state legislature or activist judge will rule that the state categorization of whom may and may not marry supersedes Church dogma and then, Religious organizations will either be forced to perform same-sex marriages or have to cease performing all marriages. That’s how they’ll attack it.

It’s all part of the ‘one brick at a time’ approach the left is using. Businesses are and will be forced to recognize same sex couples as a step on the road to full societal acceptance. It’s incremental coercion.

And a small correction to maintain perspective; A slim majority of the Supreme Court practices selective enforcement and interpretation of the Constitution and Constitutionality of Law.

As neo warned, reelection of Obama has offered the left the potential opportunity to expand that slim majority, in perpetuity.