What national consensus in support of gay rights is Milbank talking about. Every time gay marriage is put to a vote it goes down in flames.

Eh Dana, Gays are not being denied their rights they have the same rights as straight people. If a gay man wants to marry a woman, he can. If a gay woman wants to marry a man, she can. If gays want to co-habitate with their own gender, they can. It just doesn´t qualify as "Marriage"! Marriage between men and women was designed by God, or if you wish, nature since the first humanoids stood upright. It has been the highly successful norm for literally hundreds of thousands of years. Now you expect society to throw that all away for an aberation that has its roots in the "counter culture" of the 60´s? I don´t think so.

if you watch the video of Scalia (Dana, are you listening?) he states that the "beastiality/murder" reference was a "reductio ad absurdum" argument, not that they were equal in some way. too bad the bright "college kids" didn´t get it. nor did Dana. love him or hate him, Scalia is a genius.

Unfortunately gay marriage WAS voter-approved: 4 times out of 35 votes. So it´s "normalcy" that has had a consensus, but that consensus has been weakened.

One of the (many) bad things about pseudomarriage is that, once it´s approved, it´s hard to reverse. LAW TEACHES. In this case, law would teach a deformed "lesson" about sex and marriage. Now that "lesson" will be taught everywhere: from the law schools right down to the Kindergartens.

If you don´t want your kids/grandkids taught about hygienic battery-operated jiggler use and safe anal penetration --- if you don´t want them exposed to the "lesson" that religious beliefs are at best retarded and at worst criminally antisocial --- please get them out of public school now.

Home-schooling has gone from preferred to indispensable.

# 1 beat me to it. There is no national consensus. And the states that did accidentally vote in favor of it had a contorted version of the question so voters were easily duped into the wrong vote if they disagreed. No one cares about this and whats the big deal of gay marriage? What do they gain? I´ve yet to figure it out.

#5. What they hope to gain is acceptance, to go against the religious teachings of numerous religions.
If they win, government will force military chaplains to perform ceremonies against their religious beliefs, and Pastors will be arrested for refusing.

But, most importantly, they will be eligible for all the ´benefits´ now accorded to marriage. It´s all about the money!

Hate crime! Hate crime! Hate crime! Dana commits the most common of liberal disses. Time hate. Yes, Why is Scalia wrong? Because his views are "medieval." If an idea is old, it is wrong, wrong, wrong. And if it comes from the time of Church prevelance it is positively evil! You know, like Neanderthal.

Nothing bias about this article: medieval ideas, acid tongue.../s

It all depends on precisely what they have on Roberts.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, simple as that. The only reason we have to now define it by law is because sick F´n people want to re-define marriage. Here is my solution as to if being gay is "normal and genetic", put a fence around California and one right down the middle. Put the gay men on one side and the lesbians on the other, lock them all in and see how long their "cuture" lasts? Me thinks only that generation! Simple fact twobays or two girls can´t make baby, so conclusion is- not natural or normal, not genetic!!!!

Dana is amazingly stupid about our Constitution and the role of the judiciary. Our republic is through if one gay federal judge can overturn the desires of 6 million Californians

Just another skirmish in the left´s unrelenting war with God. Hath God said? Marriage preceeds the Ten Commandments, Adam and Steve were never mentioned.

Scalia is simply confirming that law is more important than a claim of national consensus. Law is not to be a popularity contest. If we truly had a national consensus, we could easily make the law reflect that fact.

The law must come first. Frankly I care more about rule of law than I do about gay marriage one way or the other.

If there was a national consensus in favor of gay marriage, it would be legal in more than a handful of states. All of this is just publicity intended to make the Supreme Court think that a ruling against gay marriage will be unpopular and damage the image of the Court. We see how well that kind of reasoning worked out in Roe v. Wade. Justice Roberts wanted Obamacare left to the democratic process. Will he use the same reasoning for gay marriage? And if DOMA is struck down--forcing the Federal government to recognize a Canadian gay marriage--will the Feds also have to recognize polygamous marriages in Muslim countries?

Yes, isn´t it disgusting that anyone in this modern enlightened era would still be against something as wholesome and fair as allowing sodomites to marry. That backward thinking is so out dated, so bigoted and biblical. God and his stinkin´ Christians must be punished until they change their thinking. LET´S SHOW THEM WHO IS BOSS

...as the acid-tongued Dana Milbank spewes hate...

What vile pieces of work Libs are!

Since "bisexual" is always included in advocacy for "gay" rights (GLBT) I hope the court will address how this would work if they OK marriage of the fecal-tract-sex addicts. Why shouldn´t three of four people who love each other in a bi-sexual arrangement be entitled to federal benefits of marriage if it´s OK for sodomite couples?

I´ll bet Diana Milquetoast left a wet spot on the chair when she stood up from writing this tripe.

#15 asks a VERY interesting question re DOMA.

If I were very wealthy, I believe I would push for homosexual marriage. With the unlimited marital deduction for gifts and bequests, you could pass virtually every estate in the country tax free by having your surviving spouse marry someone half his/her age and then avoid the estate tax altogether. Of course you can do that now, but then you take the chance you wind up with an Anna Nicole Smith situation where the surviving spouse is just a crack whore.

I know petitions.whitehouse.gov may not be the most popular website with many of the poster here, but there has been a petition for 0bama to approve "polyamorous relationships" I guess by Executive Order. It goes on to describe "polyamorous" as a relationship of one woman with multiple men OR one man with multiple women, but if it includes two or more men with two or more women, I must have missed it.

So, they haven´t really settled gay marriage, and they already want more!

I can´t think of a worse situation, imagine the number of in-laws that would involve!