In its next session (this spring), the United States Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriages.
Since the Supreme Court has occasionally invented federal jurisdiction which is not there (Roe V Wade comes to mind) there are no guarantees that a strict reading of the constitution is going to be meaningful here.
But if this court works entirely within the constitution, I don\’t see much of a legal issue – because banning same-sex marriage is telling some people they have more rights than others, and others that they have less. You can\’t do that.
And before you even think of bringing it up, the religious issue does not fly here. Freedom to practice religion is freedom not to practice religion as well. If your religious beliefs are that homosexuality is sinful and wrong in every way, you can keep them as-is, because allowing same sex marriage does not force you to change them. It allows others to have different beliefs.
Put another way, people – and there is no shortage of them – who are disgusted by, and/or ridicule, and/or despise gay people, have every right to do so. But they have no right to force gay people to live according to their lifestyle.
Between this, and the ObamaCare ruling (which will, I suspect, not invalidate but significantly alter the legislation), it\’s going to be one helluva Supreme Court session.
