NY TIMES-
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that he had looked up definitions of marriage and had been unable to find one written before a dozen years ago that did not define it as between a man and a woman. “If you succeed, that definition will not be operable,” the Chief Justice said. “You are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change the institution.”
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who many consider the likely swing vote on the case, weighed in with skepticism as the advocates for gay marriage made their case. He said the definition of marriage “has been with us for millennia.”
It’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, we know better,’ ” he said.
Justice Antonin Scalia echoed Justice Kennedy’s concerns about the weight of history and the relatively recentness of gay marriage. About halfway through Mary L. Bonauto’s argument for the recognition of a right to same-sex marriage, Justice Scalia asked whether she knew of “any society prior to the Netherlands in 2001 that permitted same sex marriages?” He repeated Justice Kennedy’s observation that the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman has been in effect “for millennia.”
Clearly even the secularists have difficulty claiming that sodomy is just like normal heterosexual intercourse. And that is the Achilles heel in their argument but apparently people are too afraid to make this point. Probably because it is disgusting on all levels. Tis not mine to tell you not to do it, but don't claim that it is equivalent to normal sex. Yes, there is normal sex and abnormal sex and sodomy is abnormal.
Knock it back the states at the least. Ginsburg needs to recuse herself after performing a homosexual sham marriage.
Yeh they also don’t want to face all holy hell breaking loose which is what will happen in more than a few states if they try to jam gay marriage down everyone’s throats. All this fuss over whether 1.6% of the population can get married.
Even the kings and nobility of the decadent 17th and 18th centuries didn’t marry their boys..
nor did they consider it...it just wasn’t done..
The homosexual bed fellows were lumped in with mistresses...just an extramarital sin and pastime, not a permanent relationship ...
yes the mistresses sometimes had the kings ear but not any homosexual partners and the mistresses were eventually replaced by younger women or fell out of favor...
Madame Pompadours were rare ..