Yes, the end is in sight for our constitutional republic. Not because of homosexual marriage, but because of how this thing was done.
"Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"
Dick Rowe, A & R man
These threads always make me smile. Both the inexorable victory for equality, and the hilarious flailing opponents. The assertions that same sex equality somehow violates religious liberty never fails to amuse, since in order to make that argument, opposition to same sex conduct would have to be universal among religious beliefs, and it isn't. In order to say that some religions' beliefs against homosexuality should inform public policy but not beliefs of other religions that support homosexuality IS a violation of religious liberty, as it explicitly places some religions above others. The argument that marriage isn't a right or that the precedents established in Loving don't apply to gays frankly demonstrates how armchair crusaders are a long long way from actual constitutional scholars.
It's gratifying that the same arguments keep winning in nearly every single case. Marriage is a fundamental right in this country, and to violate that right just for gays doesn't even meet a rational basis test, let alone the higher levels of scrutiny that all marriage, gay or straight, deserves. The opposition arguments about the state's interest in promoting heterosexual reproduction are rightfully discarded, as any such interest is not furthered by preventing gays from marrying. Absolutely no legitimate interest is furthered by preventing gays from marrying.
At this point, there is no reason to suspect that any state will be able to continue to discriminate against gay Americans. The circuit court judges (who are apparently all activists) know the law a lot better than the aforementioned armchair philosophers and understand that there is only one correct answer in this question. The big thing that still needs to happen is a ruling affording same sex marriage higher constitutional protections than rational basis. At very least, it should be analogous to the intermediate scrutiny of gender-based classification. However, the actual physical differences between men and women that could sometimes warrant specific protections for one sex and not the other doesn't warrant that level of protection. Sexuality is intrinsic to a person without altering them in any way, and is thus closer to skin color or national origin, warranting strict scrutiny. Either way, while it is satisfying that SSM bans fail to meet even the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, sexual orientation needs to be protected at a higher level.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
the fear, hate bigotry and just illogical dislike that equal rights is generating in some is astounding.
All these made up excuses that have all been debunked and destroyed, all these failed scare tactics and straw-men (rogue/activist judges, states rights, pedophilia, bestiality, freedom of religion etc) and flat out lies or ignorance is all laughable and sad at the same time.
Laughable because NOBODY honest and educated falls for it and sad that some of the people spewing that mentally inane nonsensical babble actually think its true, its not an act!