Your interpretations of the Griswold and Scott rulings are very exaggerated, I think.

Okay, here is my argument:

1:) A decision merely stating that DOMA is Constitutional would be annoying, but not disastrous, since it could be overruled legislatively

2:) A decision holding that DOMA is constitutional because ‘marriage involves one man and one woman’ would be disastrous, and would be difficult — but not impossible — to overturn legislatively — and would require more support than we currently have

3:) A decison that invalidated all same sex marriage laws — and rulings — on those grounds would be catastrophic

4:) It is ‘reasonably possible’ that Scalia would issue such a ruling were he to command the majority of the Court. (This is the arguable point, of course. Such a ruling would be against law, reason, and common sense ‘but when’s that ever stopped him before.’ And commanding the majority might be difficult — but less so if age or illness created a vacancy, in which case there could be a 4-1-3 decision with Kennedy ‘concurring in the result but not the reasoning,’ thus leaving the Scalia opinion the ruling of the Court.

5:) Such a ruling might be made more difficult if Obama’s DOJ went ‘further than necessary’ in their defense of DOMA. (This is also a guees that I would like argued against by someone with more knowledge.)

All I want, really, is to be ‘talked down.’ Anyone?

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2009/05/sotomayor-spoke-out-against-harassment-of-gay-princeton-students-in-1976.html