You want examples fine:<quoted text>
You can say it as many times as you like, it's simply not true.
How about this, find a credible source that supports your interpretation. Here is mine:
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.,
Nos. 10-2207 & 10-2214
NANCY GILL, ET AL.,
KEITH TONEY, ET AL.,
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, ET AL.,
HILARY RODHAM CLINTON,
in her official capacity as United States Secretary of State,
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
"Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
In other words, Baker does not apply in full so as to resolve the case (as federalism concerns due to a a FEDERAL statute is at issue), but it does APPLY as BINDING PRECEDENT to prevent any claim to a right to gay marriage.
so, I have put up a recent federal court decision that fully supports me...WHERE IS YOURS?
again, you can intelligently claim Baker's precedential value is weakened due to certain factors, but saying it is not a federal case/law/precedent is just ignorant.
Look at the cases the Court is considering hearing this Friday that found we deserve equal protection under the 14th.
Defense of Marriage Act: Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives v. Gill; Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Massachusetts; Office of Personnel Management v. Golinski; Windsor v. U.S.
Hollingsworth v. Perry
And there are even more in the pipeline.