If this is the game we're playing, doesn't fault then lie withing the SCotUS? It was the courts which ruled originally that the marriage license could not be applied to just interracial marriage. They changed marriage from between a man and a woman of the same race to just a man and a woman. So if that was changed, it is the source of all the downfall. Because clearly we as humans can't be rational about this so if we allow same sex marriage, we're totally going to allow polygamy, and let's throw in bestiality in there cause why do we have to limit it to the same species? Let's take the slippery slope and see where it goes, of course if we always did that nothing would get done. And in this instance it's very possible to be rational about this. But since we're not using rational arguments, then we'll tread back up the slippery slope to where it all started. We should never have allowed interracial marriage, that paved the way for the downfall of marriage. The purpose of the marriage license was to discriminate, it's still used that way (wonders how humanity grows).
I believe that when the Supreme Court is faced with the issue of same-sex marriage, with the current make-up of the Court, it will rule in favor of it.
The last significant ruling on gay rights was with
Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (Regarding homosexuals in general): "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government," wrote Justice Kennedy. "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."
Justice Kennedy: "In
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), the Court reaffirmed the substantive force of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
The Casey decision again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
'These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.'"
Six justices signed onto the majority in
Lawrence and Garner v. Texas. Only one justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, wrote a separate concurring opinion stating the government had a right to regulate marriage. All five justices who signed the majority, without the concurrence, are still on the Court (Kennedy, Breyer, Souter, Stevens, Ginsgurg).
LAWRENCE ET AL. v. TEXAS 539 U.S. 558 -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez