In response to:

Why We Are Losing Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage

Lepanto Wrote: Mar 29, 2013 11:06 AM
Jack, a first principle would be in defining the purpose of marriage. I would posit it is rearing of Children. It is why SSM cannot logically be called marriage because such a union is incapable of producing children. Biology dictates only a man and women can marry and produce children. As a Man I may wish with all my heart to be a Mother and the state of New York could decree that I am, yet nature and nature's God will never make it so.

Same-sex marriage is probably inevitable in America whatever the Supreme Court decides. That's because the public is clearly leaning that way. That the court is even being asked to impose a sweeping social change on the nation is illustrative of another lost battle -- the idea that the Supreme Court is not a super-legislature and that nine robed lawyers ought to refrain from imposing their policy preferences on the whole nation.

Even two liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, have from time to time expressed caution about the Court imposing its will on matters better left up to the...