What if gay marriage makes it to the Supreme Court? Please Vote

i voted what "I" would vote... and there should be no question of ANY marriage being constitutional or not IMO

If/when this happens, SCOTUS will decide whether it is constitutional to prohibit gay marriage. They will not be deciding whether it is constitutional to allow gay marriage.

Also, it is unclear whether you are asking DUers what they think SCOTUS will do, or if you are asking DUers for their personal opinion on how SCOTUS should decide it.

I have a question

You said;


My first thought was isn't it the same, but what if instead of a homosexual challenging say the new NC law so that SCOTUS is deciding if it is legal to prohibit, a heterosexual challenges a law in a state where it is legal, would that decide if gay marriage is constitutional? If not how?

And if we get a Democratic majority in the House and 60+ Democrats in the Senate, THEN if any supreme court justices retire (or Scalia keeps adding to his grease gut) President Obama can replace them with rational, civilized justices.

.... while surfing rentboy.com.

I don't see how even a bunch of activist conservative judges can possibly justify a ruling banning gay marriage when there's lots of pastors willing to marry them, and even states with gay marriage legalized don't force anyone to marry them who doesn't want to (unless they're a state worker who has to rubber stamp all marriage licenses that meet the state's rules).

Even a 'this is up to the churches to decide as part of the 1st amendment freedom of religion' ruling won't really work, since there's lots of 'open and affirming' churches that strongly support gay marriage, and such a decision would just create far more problems that conservatives also find abhorrent (like legalizing polygamy if even one church decides it's consistent with their faith).

majority probably WOULD do.

They've already made it perfectly clear that the only consistent "principle" they're following is that they were jammed on there (this is the majority, again) mostly by GOP presidents at the behest of their farthest right knuckle-dragging constituencies. For instance, the idea that they're going to invalidate the HC law on it depending on too expansive an interpretation of the Commerce Clause? Brilliant. Yeah. That weak commerce clause that they JUST USED to justify the Feds busting cancer grannies for smoking pot they grew themselves, in their own homes. An activity that has Jack Diddly Shit less than Nothing to do with "interstate commerce".

Of course, the favorite tack of this court is to deny "standing" to anyone who wants to present a case, thereby negating even the need to deal with the actual issues at hand. Merely being someone who breathes the air or drinks the water doesn't give you the "standing" to be a party to an environmental case, Merely being someone who is a citizen abused by law enforcement doesn't give you the "standing" to challenge the police, etc.

Of course, corporations (sorry, "people") with enough BIG$$$ BUCK$$$$ have the "standing" to bring pretty much whatever they want to the court. Of course.

So THIS COURT? I dunno. They'd probably weasel out of it. I wouldn't expect any groundbreaking dedication of equality or rights a la Roe v. Wade, Griswold, or the more famous Warren Court decisions from these guys. No way.