[d-back]

Fools both. Read Scalia's dissent; read Kennedy's decision. Your comments show that do not understand the stakes of the game being played. This is not a libertarian decision--it is a pro-homosexual, pro-Leftist agenda decision. And when they're done inventing a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, they'll move against other "antiquated" rules on sexual matters, like those barring sexual congress with your children.

Wake the f!@#$ up.

[aristeides]

I'm reading Scalia's dissent now. He makes a powerful case that Roe v. Wade is as worthy of being overruled as Bowers v. Hardwick. Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if this decision, Lawrence v. Texas, were used as the basis for overruling Roe in a few years? (The leftists and their allies on the Supreme Court have proved perfectly willing in this Lawrence case to use the stare decisis centrist opinion in Casey -- which was based on the unwillingness to overrule precedent -- to overrule Bowers.)

[NewJerseyRepublican]

"And when they're done inventing a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, they'll move against other "antiquated" rules on sexual matters, like those barring sexual congress with your children." 'Sexual congress' with children is considered rape, and rightfully so. Statutory rape, beastiality, and homosexuality are completely different, because the latter occurs with adult consent, and the last two, by definition, cannot.

[Eagle Eye]

Fools both.

Right there you show that you aren't interested in discussion.

Read Scalia's dissent; read Kennedy's decision. Your comments show that do not understand the stakes of the game being played. This is not a libertarian decision--it is a pro-homosexual, pro-Leftist agenda decision.

I haven't yet read the dissents. Those dissents wont' change my mind about the morality of homosexuality or the origins of it. And I know very well what the stakes are. This fight needs to be fought with believers, not the courts.

And when they're done inventing a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, they'll move against other "antiquated" rules on sexual matters, like those barring sexual congress with your children.

The Constitution doesn't restrict people, but government. The amendments only enumerate SOME of the rights that citizens have. Look at the 9th and 10th. You tell me what the unenumerated rights are and what they are not. I don't think that you can.

Wake the f!@#$ up.

You know what they say about people who need to curse to make a point, right?