Following oral arguments the SCOTUS Blog's comment was that they didn't have 5 votes on the court that wanted to uphold SSM, and Kennedy wanted to dismiss the case by ruling that SSM supporters didn't have standing to file the case. If the court went that way then Prop 8 would stand, and they felt that was a likely outcome. But YMMV.
What will the Court do with Proposition 8? Today’s oral argument in Plain English : SCOTUSblog
Having said that, people have forgotten how silly the whole idea of SSM is.
The idea that SSM is somehow a civil rights issue is a distortion of the concept of civil rights. And silly. What's next? Are they going to claim a civil right to have sex with dogs? What is there to keep them from doing that in today's America?
The idea that SSM is about freedom is a corruption of the concept of freedom. And silly. What's next? The "freedom" to marry prepubescent children? The "freedom" to be married to 9 wives at the same time? What is there to keep them from doing those things in today's America?
The United States is becoming increasingly degenerate. People confuse freedom with libertinism and confuse civil rights with a right to fulfill all perverted and twisted desires. Increasingly people have criticized and undermined all the worthy traditions and values that were formerly celebrated and upheld. People should read the Marquis de Sade to see where that's likely to go.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Prior to prop 8 same sex couples were allowed to marry in California for a period of about 2 years. Prop 22 was the law of the California starting in 2000 until the California State Supreme Court overturned it in 2008. This ruling declared that same sex couples had the right to marry and thus nullified prop 22. The right for same sex couples in California existed for a period of about two years and was essentially based on a technicality.
2016: NONE OF THE ABOVE
Show me where marriage is in the Constitution....The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I'll be back in 20 minutes to hear *crickets*
I don't see how equal protection can be argued. If its used, then all rules/regulations around marriage must be dissolved as well.
And yes. They seem reluctant to set a nationwide precedent either way.
And that's not even bothering with your slippery slope bestiality bull****. Animals can't sign legal contracts.
One of you will end up here next!