[sinkspur]

As it stands now, gay marriage via the courts is just a matter of time unless we get a Constitutional Marriage Amendment.

I'm not as pessimistic as you are. Especially if Bush gets to appoint a Justice or two to the Court.

[Arkinsaw]

I'm not as pessimistic as you are. Especially if Bush gets to appoint a Justice or two to the Court.

Unfortunately, in totally destroying the majority opinion Justice Scalia has described the roadmap to finally breaking down the legal obstacles to all those things. This flawed ruling will serve as the precedent for many other rulings in the future. Scalia is the giant brain, he knows what will be built on this and has described it in detail in that dissent.

[Skywalk]

It's pointless debating with these people.

Also, I find it odd that the affirmative action decision threads did not garner NEARLY the responses that the sodomy decision did.

Isn't that a bit twisted? What's wrong with some people on FR who want to jail adults for behavior that doesn't harm them(and dont give me that disease crap, that's heteros too) but don't seem to care as much about racial discrimination by an arm of the state?

It's this stuff that will get Republicans killed in elections. I'm no fan of the homosexual agenda, but that doesn't mean that because a right is not explicitly listed in the constitution that it doesn't exist.

The idiots who keep parroting that crap are basically statists who think the Constitution is a "grant" of rights.

All of you who think that are morons.

[B Knotts]

I'm not as pessimistic as you are. Especially if Bush gets to appoint a Justice or two to the Court.

Well, remember, President Reagan appointed O'Connor and Kennedy.

I agree with Justice Thomas. This kind of law is probably not the most prudent use of police power, but the wisdom of the law should be decided by the Texas legislature, not by twisting Constitutional law.

And, a gay marriage challenge is certain to follow this results-oriented decision, probably in short order.