In two cases last week, lawyers urged the Supreme Court to respect the democratic process by upholding bans on legal recognition of gay marriages. But only one of those bans can plausibly be portrayed as representing the will of the people.
The mere words same sex marriage connote it’s not a “marriage” by use of the term but rather an aberration of a societal norm a small group are determined to force onto the majority. Only 3% of Americans are gay.
California’s voters passed state law Proposition 22, in 2000, with 61 percent of the vote: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.”
Sometime in June, the U. S. Supreme Court will define marriage for us: a prospect that helps to define the moral mess we're in as a people. May gays marry gays, or do we, should we, will we stick with the ancient prescription -- one man, one woman?
The Supreme Court of the United States released same-day audio of arguments over whether California's ban on same-sex marriage should be overturned.
Homosexual activists achieved historic gains in the November 2012 election in the states of Washington, Maine and Maryland. These three notoriously liberal states passed laws extending marriage benefits to homosexual relationships by four to six percentage points. But will these legal victories ultimately deny them the sweeping Supreme Court decision they long for?