Historically, the Supreme Court has often been hesitant to jump too far out ahead of public opinion.
In this case, we don't know which justices voted to grant certiori. It could have been unanimous, not politically-driven.
One of you will end up here next!
If my post offends you, I deeply Apple-O-Jize.
Hopefully the SCOTUS will intelligently realize that a same-sex couple can no more rightly get themselves a marriage license than a man can get a dog license for his own self.
A man isn't a "dog".
A same-sex couple isn't "a man and a woman as husband and wife".
Hopefully the SCOTUS won't succumb to the three-generational brainwashing by gay activists utilizing the liberal media repeating the oxymoronic mantra chants over and over of "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage".
Hopefully the SCOTUS will rule that there is no constitutional right for a same-sex couple to "marry" by definition.
Hopefully they will rule that, by a different name, say "homarriage" or appropriate whatever, that the will of the majority of Americans (70%) to allow public and private recognition of same-sex committed romantic relationships will be granted by virtue of requiring states to create such a domestic partnership civil union statute for same-sex couples, while still respecting the will of the majority of Americans (63%) that such a statute not be called "marriage", obviously.
But if they rule that on a state by state basis that each state can decide if "marriage" applies to same-sex couples, that would be both as definitive propriety wrong as it can be to let any state "define" erroneously that marriage could include same-sex couples while at the same time allowing same-sex couples to lose their right to recognition in states that don't make that definitive propriety mistake.
Better is for the SCOTUS to recognize that "marriage" is and always has been "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", but that same-sex couples have an equal right of recognition .. and that a new name, other than marriage, must be coined to associate that recognition for same-sex couples.
When the election is over and we open our eyes, it will sadly be too late to wonder what the hell just happened.
so please tell me how that is being accepted across the nation?
it wasn't accepted across the nation the courts struck them down. if it was accepted across the nation when did the vote happen?
The government does not have the constitutional authority to make this distinction of gender in a private contract. Your semantic argument lacks any actual substance, gender is a protected classification and thus any distinction of gender is subject to intermediate constitutional scrutiny.
"Definitive propriety" is a nonsensical concept. It implies that definitions of words are immutable, which is obviously false.
The simplest way to put this:
This isn't about "defining marriage." This is about whether or not the United States government has the authority to restrict a legal contract on the basis of gender.
The answer is clearly "no."
One of you will end up here next!
While some pundits have been asserting that marriage is not an "equal protection" issue, a more authoritative source, the Constitution Annotated, reveals that the equal protection clause is one area in which litigation related to marriage can be addressed. The Constitution Annotated can be found at: https://www.congress.gov/constitution-annotated