There are several reasons why the Supremes may find in favor of gay marriage: * The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment * Changing social values * The fact that John Roberts will not want to overturn his own ruling in 10 years when there will be even more overwhelming support for gay marriage But most of all, here is a big reason - One of Justice Kennedy's best friend's was a gay man. The Dean who recruited him to McGeorge to teach (my alma mater) and who was his close friend for a long time was a not-so-closeted gay man. I do think that that personal connection just may affect Kennedy's vote, and the outcome. I hope so!
I think at least 7-2 but maybe 9-0. The only argument against gay marriage is that the court shouldn't legislate or overturn the legislature unless there is an actual constitutional question. On the surface, the 14th seems like plenty of justification to overturn bans on gay marriage. However, one might look to Roberts' statement in the ObamaCare ruling. Basically, "elections have consequences." In other words, if you don't like what your government is doing, vote to change it.
The only argument? Read this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Harbinger-Ancient-Mystery-Americas/dp/161638610X
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...al-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage/ Frankly, government has no place in marriage. They should grant civil unions to any group (two or more) of consenting adults. Marriage should be a religious designation. If Episcopalians want to marry people of the same sex, go for it. If the Catholic Church doesn't, no big deal.
I agree with this. I actually think there shouldn't be marriage for anyone or civil unions. No tax breaks for that or spitting out kids. Fuck that. Every man is an island.
The arguments against marriage equality are getting desperate to the point of being hilarious. The actual argument brought before the Court is "irresponsible procreation". Heterosexuals procreate irresponsibly, it is argued, and hetero only marriage is needed so that the results of this irresponsible procreation, i.e. children, have stable homes. In other words, gays can't get married because straights are irresponsible! Serious, this is the argument, it used to be gays are too irresponsible for marriage, now straights are too irresponsible for gays to get married. (illogical, I know) And another new one is that well, you claim to favor diversity, isn't a diverse family with parents of two sexes then better than a non diverse one with parents of one sex? If that's the case why do 50% of these diverse marriages break up? Then they flat out insult the Chief Justice by saying that a heterosexual married couple adopting children like Justice Roberts and his wife did is second best. How to win friends and influence people! BTW, also in attendance, Chief Justice Roberts' lesbian cousin and her partner. All that being said they could still decide very narrowly, California only, or states with civil unions only, or say the plaintiffs (the bigots) have no standing to appeal California's lower courts rulings. On the face this would mean the rulings allowing marriage equality in California would stand but the bigots have already said if that happens they will challenge that interpretaion.
I know you like to post pics cause they're funny , but like ive said a few times already, the Old Testament (Jewish Bible) has all kinds of messed up laws, that were invalidated by Jesus.
I'll have to ask my wife if she took any of his classes. But back on topic, the fact is as it stands now marriage is not a religious designation. I was married in a ballroom, by an officiant and without any mention of god in the ceremony (since we are not religious it seemed pretty disingenuous to have a religious ceremony). My marriage is just as valid as my friend who was married in St. James Cathedral in Seattle. Plus, churches won't be required to perform same sex marriages so it isn't infringing on their rights. Since that is the case, then there is no real religious argument against allowing gay marriage.
In all seriousness; I think marriage is when two people want to send the rest if their lives with the other. I am not one to judge anyone for their lifestyle. It's their choice. We all complain on how the government wants to control is by taxes or trying to take away free thinking. This is one form of control. I could only imagine if our government tried taking away the freedom of religion. I would be outraged if the government banned us from going to church. That they took away the "non-profit tax exemption" for church tithe. This is no different than taking away the tax credit for marriage of gay peeps/
I think Louis CK presents here the key point: For a long time, Americans just weren't comfortable talking to their "shitty little kids" about icky gay marriage. We're lazy and we just don't want to deal with anything that's personally inconvenient. But being gay is so mainstream now that it's just not as inconvenient as it used to be. Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy to see this happen. I just think civil rights struggles aren't won when a minority finally pushes through with a winning argument for their freedom. It happens when the majority gives a shrug of "Meh, whatever..." and just stops being a dick.
Court could avoid ruling on gay marriage ban http://news.yahoo.com/court-could-avoid-ruling-gay-marriage-ban-160234928.html
