[Torie]

Ya, but I saw the downside legacy of Roe v Wade the moment it was decided, and when Casey came down, knew that the winds would never blow that noisome fart out of the public square. You see, I don't see abortion (particularly third trimester) as equaling gay marriage as equaling polygamous marriage, all wrapped up in one Pandora's box. I don't see killing a semi sentient fetus for convenience as quite the same as what two consensual adults want as far as sealing their rights and duties to each other. And I suspect you don't either. You put them in varying rings of Dante's hell, and I put one outside the ring. Of course, from a jurisprudential standpoint, all are in the innermost ring to the extent SCOTUS chooses to go there.

[jwalsh07]

You see, I don't see abortion (particularly third trimester) as equaling gay marriage as equaling polygamous marriage, all wrapped up in one Pandora's box. I don't see killing a semi sentient fetus for convenience as quite the same as what two consensual adults want as far as sealing their rights and duties to each other.

Neither do I.

But I can look at history and from what I have learned on my own and with yours and others help here at FR, it is plain to me that the natural progression of SCOTUS precedents is the liberalization of those precedents.

Roe took us to PBA in the last trimester. Engel v Vitale morphed into a ban on voluntary prayer before football games. I could go on but the point is quite simple. The history of 20th century jurisprudence is an activist court moving toward an ever more socially liberal USA and quite like you, I see nothing on the horizon to stop them.

The institution of marriage is on its way out unless the Massachusetts SJC is stopped and if I live long enough, I'll be able to point to all the new laws required to handle the new "marriage" paradigm as evidence of my thesis.