Supreme Court: Consequences on deciding Prop 8 and DOMA.

In the recent media blitz concerning the two cases regarding Proposition 8 in California and DOMA (which we still await a decision), much is talked about regarding the right for people who love each other to marry vs Traditional Marriage.   This is fine and dandy for a political pundit show and I am all for traditional marriage, but there are two respective points that are being missed in the consequences of each case. 

What I am putting forth are the scenarios of different decisions and argue that a vote that is not yes to both cases ("yes" being they are constitutional) will dramatically change our country forever.  That the supreme court should not only look at what is morally right but also what is the best decision for the country; either progressively liberal or constitutionally stringent. 

Proposition 8:  The court is taking this case after the California supreme court voted that voting on whether Traditional marriage was the only legal marriage or not was not constitutional. Moreover, I am sure that would not be the case if the majority of Californians voted yes on it.   The reason according the the California Supreme court is that Homosexuals are their own people and it is a civil rights issue; that barring marriage goes against the 14th Amendment.

Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):  An act to say marriage is between a man and a woman (a law but not an amendment) is being branded unconstitutional not only for the reasons of Prop 8 but also for stating this goes against the first amendment because this is a Federal act based on religious grounds. Again the decision for this case has sweeping complications as well, to the effect to more than marriage.

Ramifications of Prop 8 Decisions:   First of all, this going to the supreme court is a liberal's dream come true.  Why might you ask?  because either a vote of "no" or simply not hearing the case would be a huge victory for the left.   Here are the scenarios:

A vote of yes:  This means that a true republic with voting to majority rule is able to vote upon their consciousness what is good for them.  It also means that the homosexual agenda has truly been defeated in the state that houses a Sodom and Gomorrah.

Not hearing the case: It would be an utter cop out by the Supreme Court not to hear the case, one because it would affect the DOMA ruling and it would send back to the California supreme court which said Prop 8 was on unconstitutional.

A vote of no: MAJOR consequences, as this does three things: 1) This would mean that the majority does not have say in voting or that voting has no point.   If I am a voter then my purpose for voting on an issue is worthless.  Meaning now anyone who may want to vote for a cause will not based on this decision.  The people not the state should make a decision and a vote of no means their vote carries no weight. 2)  This would also mean states cannot vote for something that the Federal government deems unconstitutional. This would truly eradicate state's rights and state the the citizens of said state have no binding power in a vote. It would mean state sovereignty was suspect as states would be nothing more than satellites of a National government.  3)  Future cases: What about gun rights? What about tax laws? etc if the Federal government thought these were "unconstitutional" they could override to what they deemed fit. 

Ramifications of DOMA Decisions:  This is pretty straightforward:

A vote of yes:  Not much to say here except a vote of yes means that, as has been the case for years and years, that a marriage of one man and one woman is what is correct and what has been marriage defined for thousands of years.

A vote of no:  This would mean marriage between a man and a woman are unconstitutional, past the point that it is protected by the federal government.   It would mean that now that if marriage is not between a man and a woman, then what is it?   Is it man and man? Woman and woman?  Human and animal?  One man and 20 wives?  Adultery is OK?   These are things that are not thought about.  In countries such as The Netherlands bigamy is already legal.   For some people, marrying Fido is appropriate.  The slippery slope this creates does not end until all degenerate things have come to pass for marriage.

Conclusion: Clearly a vote for yes on one is a vote of yes on the other and vice verse.   Branding both of these as unconstitutional in which we do not have laws to refrain the onslaught of an opened Pandora's box will ruin us.   Our country will no longer a democracy but truly that of a Socialist union.   That in both cases, the tenth amendment which reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."    would be no longer effective.   California states these rights are not to the people and the Supreme court by voting no to both would say these rights are not to the states.   We have to understand that (even those who are for gay marriage) that the effects of these decisions reach farther than the votes themselves and if they vote no on each, the path will not end until we are all in a totalitarian state.