The really pathetic thing (excuse me, it's a Sid Blumenthal article -- ONE of the really pathetic
things) is that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it won't outlaw abortion per se. It will revert to where it was before, in the hands of the states. The same people currently carping about how gay marriage should be an issue left to the states would never dare apply the same standard to abortion - because that would require overturning Roe v. Wade. What is far more likely is that if some states actually did approve gay marriage, then RvW would be used as an example of why federal action is so important in these vital issues of personal rights and freedoms. The states rights argument will be used as long as it is useful, then discarded when a SCOTUS decision in their favor appears imminent.
Even though majority opinion does not decide morality, I would have less of a problem with a state legislature considering the gay marriage issue with opportunity for public comment and then adopting it as law. This is not the route the left has chosen for this issue, and so I have major problems with (in the example of Massachusetts) four justices upending several thousand years of tradition and redefining for the rest of us basic tenets of society. If you want to do that, find yerself a state rep, write a bill and fight it out.
Even though majority opinion does not decide morality, I would have less of a problem with a state legislature considering the gay marriage issue with opportunity for public comment and then adopting it as law.
I agree, leave it to the legislatures, where they can be held accountable by the people.
Although it kills me how liberals always complain about losing their rights that are not expressed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, yet they are always willing to take my guns away which is expressly stated in the 2nd Amendment.