[Alter Kaker]

By taking up the challenges to DOMA and particularly Prop 8, the Court could rule that gay "marriage" is a Constitutional Right.

[SoFloFreeper]

[SoFloFreeper]

This is pitting the 10th amendment against the 14th amendment, it seems to me.

The court, if it rules for the 10th amendment, will say that states can make their own rules.

If the court rules for the 14th, it will say “equal protection” means that, in their opinion, the practice of sodomy has nothing to do with what constitutes a marriage and if two practictioners of sodomy want to call their relationship a “marriage”, the state is obligated to grant their wishes, since the state also grants that wish to heterosexuals.

[whtabtbill]

No, they can’t make it a right. Marriage isn’t a government right to begin with, just one they make you pay a fee for and get a permit. The prop 8 ruling should be reversed as the judge who overturned it had no business ruling on it in the first place. Federal courts should not be a place for intrastate matters. Regarding DOMA, it should be allowed to stand as all it does is protect states from being forced to recognized homosexual marriages. Then again, the SCOTUS was supposed to overturn Obamacare and we saw what happened there.

[Timber Rattler]

Count on John Roberts to sell the country down the river again.

[easternsky]

We lose again, by now we should be Teachers on how to lose.

[Raycpa]

Perhaps its an income tax.

[Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America]

Marriage is a contract between a man, a woman and God. I didn’t read about ‘Adam and Steve’ in the Bible! ‘Marriage’ is a club. If there are no limits, ‘marriage’ is meaningless.

[Huskrrrr]

Just around the corner.....laws forcing pastors to marry same sex couples. Assuming the Court rules in favor of gays.

[Lancey Howard]

(gulp)
I really hate to see anything of importance going to the Supreme Court these days now that the court has three distinct factions: 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moron.

[OKRA2012]

Absolutely.

This is a big case with a huge risk.

If the Court rules against Prop 8 they could strike down all Pro Family-Anti Gay Marriage laws in the nation.

We would have been better off with the Justices refusing to hear the Prop 8 case and let the lower court ruling stand.

[Neoliberalnot]

I can remember a time when people who wanted to marry close cousins of the opposite sex were called white trash—we called them sick and made fun of them. Now, a lower class of white trash wants to marry other same-sex perverts, and we call them gay and are expected to honor them. Ask yourself, which is the sicker, trashier, and lower. I am reminded of the homosexual hillbillys in the movie Deliverance. The two homos would have had less than a full set of teeth between them. The marketing of deviance by homowood is most responsible.

[Hugin]

...a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.

Incorrect. They have always had the seme right to marry as heterosexuals. They can marry any member of the oppisite sex they choose, just like heteros.

[RIghtwardHo]

Two huge problems that worry me big time:

1. Kennedy. If he doesn’t rule for gay marriage I will be stunned.

2. These two cases ruled on VERY narrow issues. Quite frankly I expect the Court to uphold them on those very narrow issues and not reach the bigger question(s).

[Don Corleone]

Apparently the STATES have NO rights anymore. None. Zip. Nada! Obama and his people have effectively scrapped the Constitution.

[lastchance]

They will rule in favor of gay marriage on 14th amendment grounds so that battle is lost. What we must now turn to is making sure that Christians are not forced to violate their religious liberties and accommodate gays.

[Ransomed]

Prop. 8 only passed by 52% in 2008. If our black robed masters don’t declare it unconstitutional, the homosexualists will simply try to repeal it with another popular vote. I doubt it would pass in Ca now.

Freegards

[calex59]

a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.

Nothing biased about that statement is there. Queers already have the same constitutional right to marry as Heterosexuals do, they can marry any person of the opposite sex that will have them. Actually there is nothing in the constitution about marriage either way, it is just accepted as common sense that a normal person wouldn't want a person of the same sex as a mate.

[oldbrowser]

Marriage is thousands of years old. governments got into the business of documenting marriages for tax and inheritance purposes more recently.

I believe the government should change the name of the services and legal relationship they record to a civil union. that's what it is really.

Now churches could perform marriages in the traditional sense.
Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's.
That is not necessarily going to solve the issue but it would help to use correct definitions going forward.

[trebb]

a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals

I didn't realize that any right to marriage was in the Constitution.