Nobody has ever forbidden the homosexual male or lesbian female from getting married, as they always had the option of entering a sham marriage with a person of the opposite sex. It could be possible, in a complicated way, for two (or more) such couples to enter in an unofficial arrangement by which the official marriage stands, and the benefits may be shared privately. In fact, this may actually be the circumstances in an unknown number of instances already.
Understandably, there is huge potential for this arrangement to blow up in any number of ways, but it does provide a sort of safety valve for that other problem of same-sex couple connections.
Respectability.
Because open same-sex couples still lack the respectability the community bestows upon conventionally defined marriage, which is between one man and one woman. Marriage vows can and have been widely disregarded among certain strata of the community, and for that reason, may be believed to be less than sacred, but sin is sin, no matter how practiced, and is best concealed to the degree possible if the goal to to gain even a modicum of respectability in one’s reputation.
But behind it all, God knows. The difference is, does that knowledge have any effect upon the type of behavior exhibited?
1) Marriage as defined by GOD is between a man and a woman
2) The entire history of mankind has defined marriage as being between a man and a woman
3) homosexuality is a sin and therefore abhorent to GOD and man
4) Those that claim that Biblical doctrine will not win the argument are liars and on the fast track to hell
5) The left has stolen enough of our language... no more... MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN... IT NEVER WILL BE OTHERWISE... REGARDLESS OF LAW!
6) Hate the sin not the sinner
LLS
4) This would be a ruling that applied only to California. It would state that once it grants the right to marry to same-sex couples it cannot revoke that right<<
The state of CA never did that. Two d@mned sets of blackrobes, one state, one federal, purposely did that.
>>there is no rational reason to deny such couples the status of marriage<<
That's Blackrobe lingo for, "We disagree with law passed twice, one by the right-wing CA legislature, and the last by the people via referendum."
I think we’re most likely to see 4) or 5). The most limited ruling they can make, given the precedents.
And while we’re at it, I can’t see any way that DOMA isn’t overturned. The left-leaning Justices want it gone for political reasons, and the right for its federal overreach.