In response to:

Early Indications: SCOTUS to Punt on Gay Marriage?

TunTavern Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 2:43 PM
Did Roe Vs Wade end the abortion debate? Did those against abortion just give up the fight after that Supreme Court ruling? Of course not. Nor will the gay marriage advocates give up if they are ruled against here. If they don't win in the court room, they'll win in the voting booth.
Beethovens10th Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 4:30 PM
The next step is a federal marriage amendment.
Manny41 Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 2:55 PM
In the voting booth, We the People have an opportunity to be heard and the issue will be openly debated, not mandated by 9 unelected judges.
If marriage were held to be a constitutional right, would a jilted suitor have a claim against a woman or man who refused a marriage proposal, as a violation of a constitutional right? Would a polygamist have a claim against the states that forbid multiple spouses? It is incumbent upon the SCOTUS to uphold the 10th Amendment, and get the feds out of this issue.
Minderfinder Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 3:03 PM
"If marriage were held to be a constitutional right, would a jilted suitor have a claim against a woman or man who refused a marriage proposal, as a violation of a constitutional right? Would a polygamist have a claim against the states that forbid multiple spouses?"

No, Yes.
Petrus64 Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 2:46 PM
But they lost in the voting booth and then found an activist judge to turnover the will of the people.
Minderfinder Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 2:50 PM
Civil rights aren't up for popular vote.
LearningCommunity Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 2:56 PM
By your logic, Jim Crow laws would still be in effect.
Petrus64 Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 3:05 PM
There's a Civil Union law in California that was written with the help of Gays. It granted "all the rights and responsibilities of Marriage" (verbatum).

There was no loss of Civil Rights. And spare me the "separate drinking fountain argument".
Petrus64 Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 3:15 PM
Hardly the case LC. Gays have had a very comprehensive Civil Union Law in California. Everyone is okay with that.

It's the changing of a 5000 year old definition that is the question. Why is it they all are trying so hard to fit in when they were born to stand out? They don't want the same legal rights, they want to have ownership of a word.
GeeHowdy Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 2:46 PM
There will be no fight if this is done right. Over and done, as it should be.
jayelwin Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 2:48 PM
No one is fighting miscegenation much now are they?
Minderfinder Wrote: Mar 26, 2013 2:50 PM
Nope, but some would like it back.

Kevin and Carol set the table for this week's historic proceedings, wherein the high court will take up the contentious issues of same sex marraige, states' rights, and equality under the law.  Based on initial tea leaves from the first session of oral arguments -- which, conservatives will painfully recall, can be misleading -- the justices may be inclined to avoid ruling on heart of the issue.  Tom Goldstein of the well-respected