Chuck balDwin points out that congress makes laws. Supreme court said doma not good. The constitution states that in the absence of fed law, it falls back to the states. Nothing in that statement is wrong
This is such a weird post. First, it ignores the Constitution, implying that is isn't/can't be "laws" since not passed by Congress. Second it cites the SCOTUS, after OiT has spent the last few weeks claiming they have no authority. Then, finally, and the best part, it cites the Constitution for something that it doesn't really say...........after implying that the Constitution doesn't apply.
Yes, that statement is, in fact, wrong. The Constitution of the United States of America is a document that limits the powers of government, first the Federal government, but then every State government via the 14th Amendment.
The Constitution protects the right of Marriage, again, via the 14th, to each and every State. Now are those words in the Constitution? No, but they are found to be within the 9th Amendment. As you state OiT, those that are not granted explicitly are still left for the PEOPLE, not necessarily the States.
Hence the following simple logic: States can't deny Constitutional rights. Marriage = Constitutional right. Kentucky can't deny a marriage license on unconstitutional grounds. Unconstitutional grounds = sexual preference (or gender). Kim Davis = Government. Therefore Kim Davis = Government =/= deny Marriage licenses to same sex people.
Claiming that "there is no law passed by Congress" completely ignores the place, and purpose, of the US Constitution. Which you ignore, I get that.......but then you cite directly to it, which is odd.
The SCOTUS did not simply say, "DOMA not good."