As Scalia pointed out last week, the ancient Greeks and Romans were very tolerant of homosexuality and they NEVER considered same-sex marriage.
IF, and it's a big if, there's a right to marriage, homosexuals HAVE AND HAVE ALWAYS HAD the same rights to marriage as everyone else. An unmarried person who isn't incarcerated and of legal age to marry is free to marry a person of the opposite sex within the guidelines of state laws regarding incest, etc. Homosexuals are free to do this.
Homosexuals have what would best be described as a sexual partnership. Unlike marriage, this partnership is solely centered on carnal sexual desires. There is NOTHING prohibiting any group of two or more people from forming a legal partnership for the purposes of fulfilling their lust AND owning property, establishing trusts, etc. People enter partnerships and buy property, borrow money, etc. every single day and they can be dissolved quite easily. States don't care if the partners consist of two sodomite males, three lesbians, four transvestites and a transgender and they can add or remove partners however the partnership bylaws prescribe. It is PERFECT for their lifestyle.
As far as the arguments about hospital visitation, prison visitation, etc., I agree that they should have them. What they do may be immoral, damnable and unhealthy, but I see no reason that same-sex partners shouldn't have the same visitation privileges that married couple do.
On the matter of taxes, trusts and partnerships actually protect the assets better than marriage. That being said, do away with estate taxes for EVERYBODY and the issue becomes moot.
You don’t have to beat me about the head and shoulders!
My point was: Nothing that any court or legislature can say or do can change the fact that the REALITY of marriage will never change. If they destroy the language, and the law, the reality will remain unchanged.
Frankly, I think they have WON. What that means in practice is the destruction of the country.
But the REALITY of marriage will re-emerge.