[pawdoggie]

When these "married" homosexual "couples" start filing joint Federal tax returns (as they will), when these same couples demand "full faith and credit" from other states (as the homosexual lobby has already said they will do), and when they demand full "married" rights in all matters ranging from the "right" to adopt (and molest) children to the "right" of transsexuals to play in the WNBA, then perhaps the paleo-cretins out there will realize that this is not about "state's rights", it's a matter that should have been disposed of at the Federal level years ago. P.S. as to why Scalia and Rehnquist chose not to involve themselves in this matter: while it's possible that their Republicanism has made them shortsighted in this matter, it's more likely that they simply recognize that the majority of their "brothers" and "sisters" on the court are too far to the Left PC to rule against the Mass Supreme Court (especially in light of the recent Texas sodomy case).

[longtermmemmory]

It depends on which SC justice has "jurisdiction" over this particular area. If it was ginsberg, they would have had zero chance of getting the petition heard because she supports homosexual marriage as a means of ending marriage as an institution.

[maryz]

P.S. as to why Scalia and Rehnquist chose not to involve themselves in this matter: while it's possible that their Republicanism has made them shortsighted in this matter, it's more likely that they simply recognize that the majority of their "brothers" and "sisters" on the court are too far to the Left PC to rule against the Mass Supreme Court (especially in light of the recent Texas sodomy case).

Didn't Scalia point out in his dissent to the TX sodomy case that it left no obstacle to gay marriage? The majority opinion, I believe, discounted this as scaremongering.

[reg45]

There seems to be a disconnect here Lawrence v. Texas was decided upon the basis of privacy. Marriage is clearly NOT a private action. Therefore "Lawrence" is irrelevant to this case.