If the Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage...

[Frodo]

...will such a ruling have the same impact as Roe vs. Wade in galvanizing conservatives for decades to come, or will it be quietly accepted by the general public as Loving vs. Virginia which effectively declared all miscegenation statutes null and void?

[opebo]

Somewhere in between.  I don't think that religious extremists feel quite as strongly about the gays as they do about controlling women - after all, gays are just a small minority, more of a scapegoat than anything, while controlling women and access to women (sex) is really one of the absolute pillars of religion.  If straight men could really just turn gay to escape the church then yes, the religious would place abusing gays just as high as they place abusing women in their hierarchy of values, but after all most men only want the female.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I think it would lean toward option 1, but it'd die down after a few years.

[Smash255]

Perhaps slightly, but it will not have the same impact.  For one younger conservatives tend to be about as pro-life as older conservatives.  On the other hand young conservatives tend to be more open to Gay marriage than older ones. 

Also, as fa as moderates go.  Moderates now tend to be mixed to lean pro-choice as a whole.  Once Gay Marriage becomes law I think the support of Gay marriage will increase quite a bit among moderates, and if the GOP tries to focus on getting it overturned its going to backfire.

[The Mikado]

Short-term galvanizing impact, long-term (and not even that long term, ~5 years) it'll fade away, though it'll still be noticeably harder to get a gay marriage license in, say, Alabama.

The Right doesn't care nearly as much about gay marriage as abortion, and the pre-Stonewall people are shrinking in their share of the electorate.  If the court rules that way in, say, 2013 (about the length of time I'd expect before Perry hits the Supremes), the electorate will be that much younger than it is now.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Perhaps slightly, but it will not have the same impact.  For one younger conservatives tend to be about as pro-life as older conservatives.  On the other hand young conservatives tend to be more open to Gay marriage than older ones.  

Also, as fa as moderates go.  Moderates now tend to be mixed to lean pro-choice as a whole.  Once Gay Marriage becomes law I think the support of Gay marriage will increase quite a bit among moderates, and if the GOP tries to focus on getting it overturned its going to backfire.

     This post makes a good point. Opposition to legalized abortion has remained steady for a long time (& now appears to be possibly increasing), which is what allows Roe v. Wade to remain at the forefront. With gay marriage, on the other hand, support has been steadily increasing over the years.

     I also think it is harder for people to criticize a ruling like Loving v. Virginia because it can be viewed as an expansion of legal equality, which is one of the cornerstones of the ideology the nation was founded upon. Roe v. Wade is harder to view in that light (indeed, there is a case to be made that it amounts to a reduction in legal equality). In those terms, Perry v. Schwarzenegger seems closer to Loving v. Virginia than it does to Roe v. Wade.

[Torie]

No. The issue will fade away - rapidly. It is not like a a bunch of fetuses that some consider the functional equivalent of babies out of the womb, are being offed every day. It is giving the name "marriage" to civil unions (even a majority of Pubbies favor civil unions these days, en route to throwing in the towel on this really), and extending certain federal benefits and duties to them.  It is in actuality, largely a big nothing.

[Verily]

No. The issue will fade away - rapidly. It is not like a a bunch of fetuses that some consider the functional equivalent of babies out of the womb, are being offed every day. It is giving the name "marriage" to civil unions (even a majority of Pubbies favor civil unions these days, en route to throwing in the towel on this really), and extending certain federal benefits and duties to them. That is not. It is in actuality, largely a big nothing.

Agree. There will be impotent rage for a while (as there was after Loving v. Virginia), but it will die down within a decade. Think Alberta's reaction to same-sex marriage in Canada.

[Lunar]

Hard to imagine any body where the average age is what, 65?, approving of gay marriage, especially one as politcized and predictable as the Supreme Court over divisive issues of the day. 

[memphis]

Hard to imagine any body where the average age is what, 65?, approving of gay marriage, especially one as politcized and predictable as the Supreme Court over divisive issues of the day. 

Supreme Court isn't really "representative" of America.

[Хahar 🤔]

Hard to imagine any body where the average age is what, 65?, approving of gay marriage, especially one as politcized and predictable as the Supreme Court over divisive issues of the day. 

IMO, it's hard to imagine a majority of the justices being so unmindful of future opinion as to rule against gay marriage. These people aren't dispassionate; they're quite vain.

[Holmes]

Probably only to irrational people like Winifield.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Somewhere in between.  I don't think that religious extremists feel quite as strongly about the gays as they do about controlling women - after all, gays are just a small minority, more of a scapegoat than anything, while controlling women and access to women (sex) is really one of the absolute pillars of religion.  If straight men could really just turn gay to escape the church then yes, the religious would place abusing gays just as high as they place abusing women in their hierarchy of values, but after all most men only want the female.

Go troll somewhere else.

[Barnes]

It's hard to imagine it becoming as controversial as abortion. However, I'm sure there will be some kind of "movement". It'll probably fade away after a few years, though.

[Holmes]

There are many "movements" now.

[Barnes]

There are many "movements" now.

Of course. But, I mean, something like "OMG the Supreme Court murders babies!" is a little more appealing to people than "OMG the Supreme Court lets people marry who they want!"

[Sbane]

It would be nothing like Roe v Wade. Even pro-choice people have to admit that abortion ends a possible life. And it's quite reasonable to be against that. People even oppose abortion in non-religious terms. And there are many women who may be pro-choice but would never get an abortion themselves. I don't see how people getting married causes harm to anyone else. Especially if nobody forces places of worship to marry gays. Anyways there already are congregations that recognize same-sex marriage so that shoudn't be a problem.

[Bo]

It will be closer to Option 1, but only for about 5-10 years. The younger generation is more tolerant of gay marriage than the older generation and I think conservatives would give up the issue after 5-10 years after realizing that their side cannot win.

[Bull Moose Base]

Hard to imagine any body where the average age is what, 65?, approving of gay marriage, especially one as politcized and predictable as the Supreme Court over divisive issues of the day. 

It'd probably be another 5-4 with Kennedy the swinger.  I think a number of gay rights advocates didn't want to pursue this until they had a more favorable court make-up.  But who knows when that would happen?

[Mechaman]

Opposition would last a whopping grand total of like five minutes.....and then nobody would care.

Pretty much like Loving v. Virginia.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Opposition would last a whopping grand total of like five minutes.....and then nobody would care.

Pretty much like Loving v. Virginia.

As would Winfield say...

VIRGINIA, A STATE WHERE VOTE DOESN'T COUNT!

Those leftist activist judges ignored the will of the people on gayinterracial marriage.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

if SCOTUS endorses gay marriage as a constitutional right, you will see a short term effort at a constitutional amendment to reverse it, but the most important effect for the right will be to add to the energy of the argument against judicial activism

[Brittain33]

if SCOTUS endorses gay marriage as a constitutional right, you will see a short term effort at a constitutional amendment to reverse it, but the most important effect for the right will be to add to the energy of the argument against judicial activism

Citizens United hasn't had much of a rallying effect against judicial activism, despite being a clear case of unelected judges overturning the will of the people expressed by their representatives.

[Mercenary]

It might be an issue for a while, but it'll fade. Unlike abortion it doesn't actually harm anyone, so in the long run people will just move on and stop caring about it like with most social issues. It isn't like you are forced to personally accept the lifestyle or believe their marriage is valid, it only means that legally they receive the same benefits. I don't think people are going to care in the long run.

[King]

if SCOTUS endorses gay marriage as a constitutional right, you will see a short term effort at a constitutional amendment to reverse it, but the most important effect for the right will be to add to the energy of the argument against judicial activism

Is your sig funny or not? I can't tell.