I find it interesting that many purportedly non-americans seem to think that Westboro Baptist Church has widespread support, gays and undesirables are hunted down if they stray from the Safe Zone, and children recite the pledge every ten minutes while we burn a book written by a jew.
Good to hear that Germany is finally considering legalizing gay marriage, BTW.
My friends on the left always push for universal, top down rulings on social issues. In reality, there are really good reasons historically for why groups move and congregate within the United States - they get better treatment and opportunity in different places. States rights is a safety net against political swings like we're dealing with and we should all support it not because we like what Alabama or Indiana wants, but because we want California or New York to be able to represent and manage itself.
Should the states have had the right to keep laws against miscegenation because someone objected to interracial marriage? What about states right when it came to Jim Crow laws?
All conjecture. If only social science was a real science and we could do independent trials.
No. What would the motivation be? What would be the precedent[s] cited?
Do i think the Federal Government would not mount an active defense of gay marriage if a given state sought to outlaw it?
Maybe. It would depend on the state and precedent[s] used to justify the endeavor.
May i pose a non sequitur query? What was the Women's March on the day after the Trumpnoguration protesting? What legislation, executive actions, or campaign promises were they seeking to highlight and defeat?