> > Maybe the US will even follow suit and let the
> >USSC define marriage in light of equality
> >rights and current social context and whatnot,
> >instead of the ridiculous (IMHO) idea of
> >putting gay marriage bans on the ballot in
> >Republican states.
>
> Thing is, it wasn't just Republican states. Michigan and Oregon, both "blue" states, passed ballot props to ban same-sex marriage pretty handily this election.
>

Yeah, gay marriage is pretty unpopular throughout the entire country. Note that Kerry was also against gay marriage -- he just didn't like the constitutional amendment Bush had proposed (stupid amendment, smart political move).

> It's still a baffling issue to me. We're not talking about a religious definition of marriage here. It's just a legal definition.
[snip]
> I personally think they *should* be able to do these things. I can't think of one single argument why they *shouldn't* that doesn't come down to some variation of "my religion/personal belief doesn't approve of this" or much worse, "I don't like gays anyway so screw them."
>
> Anyway, as far as the US Supreme Court goes, we currently have a majority of strict constructionists on the bench. What they *should* decide should a case ever be brought before them is that it's not their issue to decide so it's up to the states (which is currently how marriages work anyway, and why these ballot props were created in the first place).

There is almost no way the current Court would ever declare gay marriage a constitutional right. For starters, the Court has ruled that gays are not due the same level of scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause as minorities, meaning that states are allowed to make laws regarding sexual orientation with a lot more leeway than against people on the basis of race. Furthermore, they've also routinely ruled that the ability to regulate marriage is held by the states.

I can't even imagine the activist justices on the bench breaking from so much precedent to allow it. I'm completely with Dave here; leave it up to the states (this is the exact position taken by the Democratic nominees as well as Dick Cheney). The fact is, a lot of states are going to make it illegal, though there is significant support for civil unions. That seems like a pretty good compromise to me.

Commie_bat is a Canadian (and also a communist, apparently) so perhaps that explains why he or she wants the Supreme Court to decide the case. I know almost nothing about the Canadian government, but I assure you it would be pretty bad if this were to happen in America.

Broad, sweeping, unpopular decisions by our Supreme Court tend to be difficult to enforce and create years of problems. Our judicial system is deliberately weak and powerful: its rulings are binding and final short of amending the Constitution, but it relies on the rest of the government to enforce the decisions.

Even when the Court makes controversial decisions for which there is a fair amount of public support (e.g. Brown v. Board of Education, ending racial segregation in public schools or Roe v. Wade, granting a constitutional right to abortion), actual enforcement of those decisions has been very spotty. Furthermore, these sorts of decisions really take away from the respect the public has for the Court, which is dangerous if you expect that Court to continue being able to operate as the final check on governments.

No, we're best off leaving the issue to states to decide, because that will let people more easily choose what works best in their area. Personally, I agree with Mina that the state should be out of the marriage regulating business entirely, but the chances of that happening are about the same as Justice Scalia deciding that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right for gays to marry.

Stephen

And, before anyone says anything, civil unions are not even substantially similar to the "separate but equal" doctrine that applied to blacks before the 1950s. There's a world of difference between actual, separate facilities and having a different word to define the same legal concept.