Supreme Court and same sex marriage

It does not matter your personal opinion on same sex marriage, a state has the right, given by the Constitution, to create and manage marriage and divorce laws, as such California is following their Constitutional right. The Supreme Court deals in regards to the Constitution, therefore they should find in favor of California. It is not a moral or belief issue, it is a matter of fallowing the Constitution. I will add one thing before I end this post, to prevent an onslaught of people bashing me for this post. Personally I see no harm in letting people of the same sex be married, as I see it, love is love.

Although a state has the right to manage it's own affairs, it cannot due so in contrast to the rights given to United States citizens in the constitution. That's what the hearing is about. Weither or not it is constitutional to ban marriage for the LGBT community. A state could vote into law that woman/minorities can't vote, but that's law would be noncompliant to the constitution and thus repealed. Equally, a state could also vote that ethnicities cannot marry outside their own ethnic group. That'd probably wouldn't fly under the constitution either

I have pretty strong feelings toward this debate even though I'm straight myself. I personally think it's impossible for the justices to not have a bias and judge based only on the legal technicalities. The 15th Amendment is an example of this because from a legal standpoint, this should be completely unnecessary. Bias can easily alter interpretations of the Constitution to fit your agenda, as it's been shown time and time again. This is kind of an unpopular opinion, but I also believe that strongly clinging to the Constitution, or any legal document can be inhibiting to a society's progress. On one hand, it is the backbone of our legal system. At the same time, it's nothing than outdated words written centuries ago when America was a very different country. Scholars from Plato to Marx agree that the political system needs to evolve with the size of the population. And yet, we are legally bound by a document created over three centuries ago, with people interpreting the outdated words to their own benefit. The history and context of the 2nd Amendment and how it's applied today is an example of this.

I could really care less whether they marry or not, as it doesn't affect me in the slightest. Though, I really wish they would say 'yes' just to get it over with. While everybody is arguing about gay marriage, they try to/have passed some really nasty laws while everyone is distracted. Here's two examples, the Monsanto bill actually passed, but SOPA was thankfully caught in time. "Monsanto Protection Act" - http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/ SOPA Act - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

The problem with the issue of gay marriage is that people are bring in religion which shouldn't be part of the legal/civil process of anything in this country because separation of church and state. Religious people can have their religious marriages but religious beliefs have no place in civil marriage, doesn't matter what religion you are. It's like if you're catholic, you can get a civil divorce but you'll never be divorced in the eyes of the church. But you can legally obtain a divorce

@xueli I agree, but separation of church and state seems like more of an ideal and less of a reality. The idea of "man and woman" is so ingrained in many of us that it's easy to mistake it for society's definition of marriage and not a religion's. To me, this whole charade is nothing more than a poor comedy. It's not "really" about marriage, but rather about certain people's discomfort toward gays that can't be expressed openly. People(most) can't simply yell out "I'm uncomfortable with gays!!" and instead express themselves in a more politically correct form, with "sanctity of marriage" as the vehicle to do it in. If "sanctity of marriage" was the real issue, there would be more activist groups against people that get multiple divorces, marry for money, are in "open" marriages, etc. This whole thing has evolved into a massive straw-man legal battle that's derailed from the real "politically incorrect" issue that nobody wants to touch with a 10 foot pole.

I agree that it's a straw-man argument since really, in civil marriages religions and what you're personally comfortable has nothing to do with anything. It's just crazy that they think there's a viable excuse they can use for banning gay marriage. "Because it's unnatural" - Homosexuality exists in the natural world (animals can be gay too) "It's a sin" - Doesn't pass the lemon test, fail "It's unproductive." - Then women who've hit menopause can't get married either There's just no valid reason. I think they'll pass it though. The only big resounding no is Scalia and honestly, no one is surprised at that

It doesn't matter or offend me what gender someone wants to marry. I overheard someone against it and it wasn't because of their religion/moral beliefs/etc etc that they were complaining, but they thought that more people would lie on their taxes. They went on by saying the people that are just living with another person of the same gender, but as in like just a roomate relationship, would just lie and say they are married to that person just to get some sort of tax exemption (never been married, wouldn't know about that). Needless to say this has come up as the almost top issue with those against it. This is just my own observation @J_Awesome: Ya I'm totally with you on that mesento bill. I think a lot more people should be concerned about that atm.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/03/same-sex-marriage-blamed-for-problems/

No matter what your views on homosexuality may be, the fact is that this is a simple question of civil rights. It's the same as preventing people from doing what others can do simply because of the color of their skin.