They have the same rights as any one now. Hetrosexuals can marry and so too can gays. And vis versa, gays can´t marry people of the same sex and neither can heterosexuals. In the end, this will create all kinds of problems as we all know the court will rule that anything goes.

Here we go. Look for a brand new constitutional right no one ever noticed before giving anybody or anything the right to marry anybody or anything. The Framers, of course, were very careful about including this.

We already know what John Roberts is made of.

After the NØbamacare disaster, I have no faith in the SCOTUS, or any branch of our government, to stand up against the tyranny of a small minority to force their perverse lifestyle choices on us.

The United State of America died on 11-6-2012. The rot that is consuming the corpse will only be sped up when the sodomites get official government approval of their perversion as ´´legally acceptable´´.

I have the strange feeling that this is how ancient Rome felt shortly before Hannibal came calling...

Gay marriage is inevitable. Disliking gays is not even close to a good enough reason to deny it.

#5, Death is also inevitable. Should we embrace that ASAP too?

The three females should have to recuse themselves.

Moot point once the muslims take over.

Had they refused to hear the Prop 8 case, the 9th Circuits decision overruling Prop 8 would have been final. So the decision by the Supremes to hear it is likely favorable.

Disliking gays? Really? That´s the best argument you can come up with? This shows the dishonesty of the pro gay marriage camp - their total unwillingness to engage in logical discussion and argumentation. Play the hate card and get out of the logical thinking jail for free.

The essence of marriage is the male-female couple. Change that composition and you simply do not have marriage. From the pro gay marriage view, one must disingenuously argue that men and women are alike and therefor interchangeable, hence no "bride" or "groom" on the license. Likewise there is no intrinsic difference between a mother and a father. Children don´t need a mother, or a father - just whoever is there. Mothering and fathering are irrelevant to the lives of children.

If marriage can be redefined based on sex, why can´t it be redefined for anything else? Why can´t a brother and sister marry for the benefits? Who gets to set the limits?

And how shall we punish the traditionalists who refuse to accept this perverted redefinition of the institution on which solid families -citizens - nations are built?
Ramona (the Pest)

FTA - A decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages.

This is why they want the case. Laws passed by individual states, sometimes by huge margins, will be cast aside.
It won´t end with this issue either.

Aw, geez. This will work out well. /sarcasm

#11, you are right. The progressive domino theory.

God let them follow their own evil desires. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural.

Men behaved in the same way. They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds.

Perhaps #4 meant Attila. Hannibal was in the 2nd century BC.

With all the respect the MSM deserves and yes I am screaming

NO ONE HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE.

Not Gays, heterosexuals, little people circus performers, trolls, mutants, presbyterians or troglodytes.

Marriage is a religious covenant between a man, a woman and God. The state bestows certain priveleges on married couples in order to encourage strong families and safeguard Children. As such the "rights´ so strongly believed by the Gay Rights crowd to be enshrined in the constiutution can be taken away by the government at any time for any reason, period.

I absolutely (yes I´m yelling again) despise the complete intellectual dishonesty of this entire argument.

The goal is not a "right" the goal is for the government to endorse the gay lifestyle. I would rather the state take away all those "rights" like the right to pay higher taxes and the right to bear responsibility for mywifes kids and the right for my wife to get whatever the government does not take when I die without a will (which I already have idiots) and the right to have my wife decide end of life care without a health care proxy statement (which I already have).

Wuite frankly, the states "marriage priveleges" are right now wholly redundant and I would probably be better off without them. My Marriage is none of the states concern, that is between me, my wife and God. Period

Yes, here we go. I´m not feeling good about this. The sick feeling in my stomach since the election is worsening.

Gay marriage is being foisted upon us by a loud, obnoxious minority. Gays are one-point-something percent of the population, and those pushing for marriage number less than that. What could possibly be more important for our beleaguered nation than one guy marrying another??

Here´s the dirty little secret gays don´t want any light on, especially now: they are not monogamous. Among "couples," it´s most often "we are in an open relationship" and "I´m allowed to play around."

They don´t care about marriage, they want to force acceptance of the lifestyle. Whatever they want to do in the bedroom´s fine with me, but don´t force the lifestyle on the rest of us.

How many times must I say it. There is no "ban" on gay marriage in California. It is just not legally recognized by the state. Big difference. Since there is no "ban", nobody is infringing on people´s religion or their rights. The state does not have to recognize gay marriage though. A legally recognized state of marriage is not a right...that is actually a privilege.

Any bets on which way Kagan will vote?

Marriage provides the stable nest in which society renews itself. It is chiefly a benefit to society and that is why IRS deductions are allowed for children in the tax system.

Gay marriages cannot provide this renewal unless they adopt or artificial insemination is used.

If gayness is inherited they would have died out by now because over the millenia they would not have reproduced and so therefore could not have inherited gayness.

They can live together now, have a legal partnership and power of attorney. They can´t force their way into traditional marriage for their ego´s sake nor can they force acceptability by others.
This is just a matter of common sense, not a matter of religion.

By this time next year gay marriage will be recognized in all 50 states and by the Federal Government (full faith and credit clause a la Lovins vs Virginia) It will probably make civil marriage the norm and allow churches to bless or not to bless the unions. Health care benefits, reirement benefits, and estate benefits will flow to these new "marriages". And divorce lawyers will have a whole new crop of potential clients. Welcome to the Brave New World.

And led by roberts will decree that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage. And guess what marriage will be in a decade. We are certainly hellbent on destroying all our once great institutions.

I say no more church weddings, everyone get´s married by a court official. Afterwards if you wish you can have your marriage blessed by your priest, rabbi or minister. Let´s take religion out of this civil union and see how many brides who voted for Obama complain that they can´t have their church wedding anymore because now gays can marry?

If they didn´t take it up, the California decision overturning Prop 8 would stand.

This is just a small incremental step. On November 13, a petition was started on

www.petitions.whitehouse.gov

Stating: This petition is for the Polyamorous to be allowed to be recognized as legal relationships within the United States.

And after relationships of numerous humans, can human-animal matings be far behind?

Why should the very vocal 1.5% deny the will of the 98.5% who are not gay and may not--as many in 31 states have voted--want their children exposed to that very vocal slim minority portraying themselves as superior to heterosexuals?

Just to make it FAIR I suggest that a gay childless couple be given at least two "child" deductions to begin with. It isn´t fair that a couple who can´t have kids should be denied the benefit.

#7 you mean there are 3 females on the court?

Changing the legal definition of marriage is above everyone´s paygrade, nor can any court change authentic, ´´marriage,´´ to include any counterfeit, ´´marriage.´´

...This issue is not a matter of liking or not liking anyone. There are other ways to legally address the specific issues of concern to some people regarding caretakers, hospital visits, inheritances & etc., than to marginalize the authentic meaning of, ´´Holy Matrimony.´´

#23, it will happen if the SCOTUS rules for gay marriage. Churches of all denominations will stop marrying anyone in the church. The religious ceremonies will have to take place off church grounds but still by a minister/priest who cannot be forced to marry anyone whom they believe is violating religious doctrine. You cannot force anyone of faith to marry you. In essence, you go to church to hear the word and communion with other parishioners. That´s it.

Next, baptism and communion of children of gay couples. That´s coming down the pikes. Frankly, it does not matter where you marry or baptize as long as God reigns supreme. Those who engage in certain behaviors contradictory to your faith will have their conscience to deal with and the Good Lord will deal with them.

The SC will uphold gay marriage. In 2016 the Dems will use a War on Men campaign starring Sammy Fluke, 35 year old college student, accusing the GOP of trying to take away condoms from gays.

I walked into the zoo, pointed at a giraffe and commanded it to bark.

´You are now a dog! Bark! Speak!´

Silence.

You see, words have meaning as well as human relationships have definitions.

Beyond that think of the culture. The tradition. The history. The customs. Male-female marriage has been the basis of every civilization in every nation on every continent throughout time. Coincidence? Hardly.

Now we have a group more interested in destruction than in creation swanning in and declaring ´That´s ours now. We´ll have that.´ Changing laws is easy compared to changing minds. That´s why militants and malcontents go for the courts every time.

What happened to the pro-abortionistas rants about keeping the government out of our bedrooms? Between gay ´marriage´ and 0bamacare, our bedrooms are getting really crowded.

Forgot to add...this will be really convenient for the Muslims once zippy lets them get Sharia law going here. All they´ll have to do is look at the marriage records in any county and they´ll know just who to behead.

Daniel 11:36-37: "He will neither regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor any other god, for he exalteth himself above them all."