Not a Federal issue, let the states decide.
Someone can pee on my leg all day long and tell me it´s raining but it isn´t marriage unless it is two people of opposite sexes.

Civil war? Because John Boehner is so conservative? LOL.

When it becomes obvious that the republicans will be climbing on tne gay marriage bandwagon, ol Johnny will be the first to hop on board. Granted, he will udoubtedly be crying real tears about how the gays were held down for so long.

Not an ounce of integrity in any of these fools.

I´m really beyond tired of alleged "conservatives" maligning Boehner because he cried *once*, being personally moved he had received the honor of being elected Speaker.

And this article doesn´t imply that Boehner is a RINO that will cave to the Same Sex Marriage crowd, either.
Can we quit forming the circular GOP firing squad the NYT and the Left would love for us to do?

Weaklings, cowards and fools. They think that people that support hard left politicians will switch to an only slightly hard left politician? There truly is no difference between the two parties except the dems are more efficient in destroying this country. And to deny the relationship between fiscal and social conservatism is to deny history.

This reminds me of that old saying, "If you don´t stand for anything, you will fall for everything". Perfect description of RINOs.

"The "Republican party is quickly turning into a liberal party on many issues-- many are dumping conservative stands on moral issues, monetary issues, and pro-family issues.

They should call themselves something else or the remaining Reagan sonservatives should bolt and form another party. The demonrats have many coalitions but they are all unified in defeating Republicans.

The notion that jumping on the high-taxes, pro-gay, pro-abortion wagon is going to help them with their constituents is flat out foolish. Since they don´t stand for anything, that fall for anything.

Homosexuals cannot get Social Security from their "spouses". (Did you know this?) How unfair! Hey, put it on the ballot and see how far it gets. This is a democracy. But most people are just too stupid to realize you can ignore genders for humans, unlike in the electrical and mechanical trades.

This is a bad dream, and the Times is rubbing it in Republican faces. Democrats and the gay-infected media raised this issue and have ridden it for decades. Screw them.

He is a self admitted crier #3. He cries at anything. We didn´t hang this on him. He did it himself.

There is not a law in the nation that prevents any woman from marrying any man providing both are old enough to formally consent, they are both single, and they are not directly related to each other. For CA politically active judges, this was not enough. The people of CA created a ballot initiative and voted to retain one man and one woman. Now the Supreme Court will decide. Does anyone believe that a couple of handfuls of washed up politicians will matter in this process?

And we wonder why the Democrat party has become so hard left? They are trying to outpace the stinking Republicans!

Before condemning all Republicans for betraying conservative principles, you should read the article to find out who actually signed this brief in support of gay marriage. I most cases, it´s the usual cast of "moderates" and "libertarians," along with one or two parents of homosexuals, whose decision is likely based on support for their children than any particular moral or political belief. IMO, this is just another article from the NYT meant to sow division within the Republican Party.

this is why the republican party is doomed.

there is no room in the "big tent" for anyone who thinks 9 people in black robes should decide whether marriage is between two people of the same sex.

Repulsive!!

Do the leaders of this country ever intend to get around to the economy? They could fix the economy by quitting and going home, as government intervention and spending is the problem.

Is it possible for a law or a court to change what a person is? To decree that same-sex persons are mother and father, man and wife, or partners in matrimony (matrimony comes from mater, i.e., mother) is an absurd assumption of power.

Any couple, however construed, can contractually assume the legal sharing of real property, goods and responsibility, BUT they cannot change their height, intelligence or other physical facts of their being. Regardless of the assumed purity of your intentions, it cannot be done.

One man, one woman. No other way.