This court will rule, as it did in the Colorado case, that this law is motivated by animus against homosexuals.
Which it is.
Traditional marriage has three elements:
1) It is permanent, and non-dissolvable except under extraordinary circumstances not directly under the control of the parties.
2) It is sexually exclusive, and violations are punishable by the criminal law.
3) It is between a man and a woman.
Numbers one and two are dictated by the created nature of men and women. The establishment of permanency and fidelity in law practically guarantees #3, since permanency and fidelity are the natural law accompaniments of heterosexual marriage.
Once the heterosexuals of this country eliminated #1 and #2 from the "definition of marriage", the question arose of whether such a minimalist concept of marriage (i.e., non-permanent, non-exclusive, but for males and females only) could survive.
It probably won't. But the destroyers of marriage are the straight male legislators who passed the 1969-73 marriage "reforms", not a few gays who have drawn the logical inferences.
I concur. This is what I said just the other day regarding Lance Armstrong's divorce:
People suggest that allowing people of the same sex to marry would destroy the institution. I say, gay marriage would only be the final stage of destruction of the institution that began with the concept of no-fault divorce.To wit: Once marriage [became] easier to legally escape than a health-club membership, the differences between marriage and shacking up began to evaporate. Now that people with normal sexual inclinations can shack up and get almost all the benefits of marriage, gays can say, "Hey, we shack up too!"