Facts aren't debatable. Opinions are debatable. If you want to debate the veracity of claimed facts, it helps to provide evidence that they are wrong.
The states do have wide autonomy to govern themselves. However, they do not have the right to treat some citizens differently than others with respect to rights enacted under state law, because this is expressly forbidden by the 14th Amendment. Laws written by legislatures that conflict with the 14th Amendment are invalid and unconstitutional. The thing that's bizarre about Scalia's dissent is his utter inability to get past his own prejudices, even in the face of a very clearly worded Amendment and previous Supreme Court rulings that used the exact same argument.
If the state establishes a marriage right, it is established by the state on behalf of the people, and it is through the peoples' will that this right comes into existence. The 14th amendment simply says that if some citizens have this newly established right, then all citizens must have it. The state can't grant some rights only to a subset of its citizens.
Wow, is public school history that woefully bad now? The Declaration was signed in 1776. The Articles of Confederacy were signed in 1777. The U.S. Constitution, which superseded it, was ratified in 1788. The Declaration is a statement of purpose, not a legal document. It was never ratified by the people, nor by any governing body. The earliest that you can say the United States of America existed as a legal proposition was 1777 when the Articles of Confederacy were signed, but the date at which the currently existing United States of America came into being was 1788, when the constitution was ratified. It didn't actually take effect until March 4 of 1789, when the first Congress came into power. It is certainly true that the words in the Declaration were highly influential in the writing of the Constitution, but the Declaration itself has no legal authority. It is a lovely aspirational document, though, and today's decision is another step in the direction of living up to its stated intent.
Actually RFC 6434 explicitly states that there is no such requirement.
Android, AFAIK, isn't used for servers. That said, using DHCP to configure server IP addresses isn't recommended. What you want is to provision the server IP address using whatever orchestration software you use, so that it has the right address on startup.
Yeah, ND needs work, and is being worked on.
Actually I used to manage a very large IPv4 network. However, you are correct that I'd never managed an IPv6 network of any size when I was working on RFC 3315, and I don't think any of the other authors had either. And it shows--there are quite a few embarrassing holes in the spec. I'm not going to go down your "what keeps IPv6 from being adopted rathole," because from my perspective IPv6 _is_ being adopted, and I don't feel any need to see it adopted faster. I'm amazed at how much of the Internet I can reach over IPv6, and I'd like people to deploy carefully and correctly, not just think they're doing a drop-in replacement of IPv4 with IPv6 as if they were both the same thing.
Right. So what do you want to do with DHCPv6 that you can't do because Android doesn't support DHCPv6 IA_NA?
You aren't likely to notice them on a home network with network address translation. If you actually _use_ IPv6' capabilities, having to operate a DHCPv6 server is going to start to seem like a chore.
That's not how IPv6 works. You are trying to run an IPv4 network using the IPv6 transport. IPv6 is not just IPv4 with 2^96 more addresses.
There are no other hundred-ish host configuration variables in DHCPv6. There are two that you are likely to care about, and they're both also available in the RA.
I think you mean a stateless dynamic address, not a static address. Static addresses are manually configured, which nobody wants. RFC 7217 solves this problem by specifying a way of doing stateless auto-configuration without using the MAC address.
Anyone who wants privacy?
My Android phone works just fine on IPv6 networks.