Why is SSM such a big deal?

[The Mikado]

Lack of marriage equality de jure discrimination against a minority group. To some of us, the very existence of de jure discrimination in the law codes offends our moral senses.

[The Mikado]

The idea that marriage is granted by the government doesn't really sit well with me though. It should be a religious sanctum

Where does this view come from? My parents were married by a judge in my mom's living room. This was three decades ago. No religion involved.

[The Mikado]

Sorry for the rant, but it is a topic I have come to the correct realization on.  Christianity reigns and gay marriage loses in eternity.  Pure and simple.

Just a question, but how do you feel about legalized gambling like you have up in Oklahoma? That's pretty clearly a Biblically-defined sinful act that has proven very, very lucrative for the people at Winstar and the other big Oklahoma casinos.

[The Mikado]

I'm actually very interested in what Bushie has to say about gambling, because in many ways I myself feel that the gambling industry is fundamentally immoral and is a way of thieving from the poorly-educated and innumerate amongst us. I'm personally somewhat conflicted about gambling's legality because it's legalized predation among a vulnerable population. Also, gambling can easily lead to other morally corrupting crimes like rigging sporting matches, or forcing a desperate person in a large debt to look to crime to get out of debt. That said, I fall down on the side that casino gambling should be legal, if under strict state surveillance and regulation.

If I can hold my nose and say that I am...reluctantly...fine with gambling existing as a legal practice, surely people on the right can come to the same conclusion about same sex marriage.

[The Mikado]

There's a difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy.  A ruling imposing SSM on America would be judicial supremacy. It should be defied. It would be an unprecedented violation of multiple state constitutions. The court would essentially be invalidating the constitutions of the states. If same-sex marriage was granted by the founders, we would have had it since the 1700s.

I am not sure I would hold SSM to be a Constitutionally protected right if I were on SCOTUS myself. I am  not comfortable with aggressive interpretations of Constitutional text, particularly if clearly not the intent of the text when promulgated, which do in fact if abused give the Courts in essence the power to legislate. On the other hand, a situation where a married couple of the same sex could have their marriage dissolved when they move to another state is an intolerable situation from a policy standpoint, and may infringe the constitutional right to travel and relocate.

If the Court doesn't want to overturn Windsor and Perry a mere three years after writing them (the same Court with the same membership!), it basically boils down to two options: every state has to recognize same sex marriages but doesn't have to issue them, or every state has to issue them. Perry has them in this box where a state constitutional ban on same sex marriage is motivated by animus and can be overturned, and if they punt (which they won't do, they chose to take this case) the lower court split between the Sixth Court and the other courts will be an impossible dilemma.

Every state has to recognize but doesn't have to issue will be a ridiculous procedural issue, much cleaner to just rule it legal nationally.

[The Mikado]

This would've been far simpler if the ERA had passed...SSM could have been ruled in on gender equality grounds (the ability to marry a woman but not marry a man as gender discrimination). More's the pity about the ERA falling just short of the finish line.