The argument has been allowed to be defined by the Left, as a civil rights issue, as the "people have a right to love whomever they wish" assertion.

Of course, no-one is telling anyone whom they can love.

One ought to be asking why these people demand that Marriage be redefined and thereby destroyed, stripped of all meaning, rendered moot, and why instead are they not working for Federal civil union law.

One is left with the unavoidable conclusion that it is indeed the destruction of Marriage which is the teleological goal.

Gay marriage makes as much sense as "Life Saving Euthanasia"

Does anyone doubt the Supreme Court is going to rule gay marriage legal?

It`s a done deal....

"an increasingly popular movement"?

I don´t think so. A movement that more people are resigning themselves to, maybe. Popular?--no way.

This is how the left does it, folks. This is a perfect example.

Spot on. Substitute, ´politically correct diet shoved down the throats of the populace under threat of harassment´ - for ´increasingly popular´, and you might be on to something...

Regardless - there is *no* authority that puts the welfare of a child raised by ´non-traditional´ parents - in the same category of well-being enjoyed by children of NORMAL parents.

Why is there a need to explain? The concept is perverse and goes against nature.

The political right is completely missing the boat on this.

The proper position is - - no government involvement AT ALL with marriage.

Adults can make any contractual arrangements they choose to. They don´t need governemtn approval to do this. When a government issues a "marriage license" - - what exactly are they "licensing"?

Government involvement with "marriage´ should occur only when there´s a contact dispute which requires a civil court to settle it.

For the right to ask the government to endorse its point of view over other points of view is a big mistake.

As with almost all other things - - KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT!

Maybe I´m living in a fool´s paradise, but I don´t see how the Supreme Court can find California´s definition of marriage as between a man and a woman unconstitutional. Marriage, within it´s traditional meaning, has been around for as long as civilization. Same sex "marriage" is a new and radical concept. It provides little or no benefit to society, unlike traditional marriage, which seeks to promote monogamous sexual behavior, which greatly benefits society, by making it more likely that children will be born to and raised by a mother and father who are officially committed to each other by marriage.

Gays have probably caused increases in condom sales.

Making these SCOTUS cases a Trojan horse.

Maybe you could market a condom by that name...

After all...
they may try to marry horses next...
Neigh?

(There´s a Hollywood rumor... Mister Ed and Fury were gay...)("Oh-oh-oh... Wilburrrr!")

There are 7 billion humans on this planet.

Each and every one of us got here through the interaction between a male and a female. There is not a single case of a male and a male producing a human, nor is there a single case of a female and a female producing another human.

Homo marriage is absurd.

Show me 1 same sex couple that can, through what they call ´normal sex´ can have a child...just 1 couple, come on Libs, you can do it.

Well since no one could, this is NOT a marriage, it is a coupling of two people, a union, NOTHING MORE!

#7. nice try BUT..... that is the same argument there is against the death penalty. "I prefer hard labor for life over a quick death". That is great except there is NO hard labor, thus it is death or an easy life in prison. No, I prefer death, quickly. I also prefer the govt stay out of the marriage business but that will NEVER happen thus stop gay marriage NOW. You need to live in the REAL world.

Let´s continue to pray for traditional marriage, one man and one woman... For the husband and wife´s sake and all the Children... People are welcome to love whomever they want... Just keep marriage traditional!

I am optimistic for the Court´s decision in June: 6-3 FOR traditional marriage.

The one hope for the Supreme Court is that a majority of justices will remember how Roe v. Wade failed to "solve" the abortion question and leave gay marriage in the hands of the political process. It may be a faint hope, but I can hope it, all the same. Either that, or it´s decades of conflict all over again.

Somehow gay marriage is a "right" in one breath, yet there is no such right for an unborn child. A criminal illegal alien has a "right" to be here, yet a law abiding citizen is being assaulted for owning a gun.
As laws passed by politicians or declared by judicial fiat become more inconsistent and meaningless, these geniuses are paving the way for average citizens to engage in non-violent civil disobedience. An "anything goes" culture promoted by laws passed with no moral under-pinnings cuts both ways.