Justices Appear Deeply Divided on Right to Same-Sex Marriage
Source: NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
BREAKING NEWS Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:02 PM EDT
Justices Appear Deeply Divided on Right to Same-Sex Marriage
The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed deeply divided about one of the great civil rights issues of the age: whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.
They appeared to clash over not only what is the right answer but also over how to reach it. The questioning illuminated their conflicting views on history, tradition, biology, constitutional interpretation, the democratic process and the role of the courts in prodding social change.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said he was concerned about changing a conception of marriage that has persisted for millennia. Later, though, he expressed qualms about excluding gay families from what he called a noble and sacred institution. Chief Justice John C. Roberts Jr. worried about shutting down a fast-moving societal debate.
In the initial questioning, which lasted about 90 minutes, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked whether groups of four people must be allowed to marry, while Justice Antonin Scalia said a ruling for same-sex marriage might require some members of the clergy to perform the ceremonies, even if they violate their religious teaching.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer described marriage as a fundamental liberty. And Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan said that allowing same-sex marriage would do no harm to the marriages of opposite-sex couples.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?emc=edit_na_20150428
= new reply since forum marked as read
animal-human hybrids definitely a no-no for public ruminations 
weird. 
Hope to see/hear more, but if their 'anti-' positions don't amount to more than this, we win, imo.
Response to Mira (Original post)
not most of the ones I see
“One of the things that’s truly extraordinary about this whole issue is how quickly has been the acceptance of your position across broad elements of society,” he said.
Justice Scalia agreed. “The issue, of course, is not whether there should be same-sex marriage, but who should decide the point.” The right answer, he said, was the people or their elected representatives, not the courts.
On this point, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a member of the court’s liberal wing, had his own reservations.
“Suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states that don’t want to do it to change what marriage is to include gay people,” he said. “Why cannot those states at least wait and see whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to marriage?” Later in the argument, though, Justice Breyer indicated support for same-sex marriage as part of basic liberty. “Marriage is about as basic a right as there is,” he said.
Equal protection of the law when adopted in the post Civil War Amendment was designed to protect newly freed slaves. The term was quickly taken over by Corporate America to defeat efforts to regulate and control Corporations, and such lawsuits to protect corporation by giving them "Equal Protection of the law" became the overwhelming prime use of Equal Protection
Woman have have had a hard time using Equal Protection clause, relying on the 1964 Civil Rights Amendments and state's Equal protection of the laws instead (Thus woman can be restricted from being in the Military, since that is a FEDERAL FUNCTION and thus the only constitutional clause are these same equal protection clauses that the courts have long rule can differentiate between the sexes).
Thus Churches would required to perform weddings, that it causes harm or no harm to opposite sex marriages are all ill-relevant issues (They are relevant to the debate on same sex marriage, if this was being debated in a State Legislature or the Federal Congress, but NOT in the US Supreme Court).
The only issue is does the equal protection clause of the US Constitution permit states to BAN same sex marriages? That is the issue in this case. You may agree with it, you may disagree with it, but that is the issue. I hate how the court has expanded Equal Protection to protect corporations and I hope the court restricts what the Equal Protection Clause means, so that maybe in the future the court will decide equal protection permits the states to regulate Corporations. Thus I hope the court rule that the states can BAN gay marriage for I can then use that to show equal protection does NOT exclude state regulations of Corporations.
In many ways that is the heart of this fight, are they any restrictions on the concept of Equal Protection? Is it Equal protection of the law to permit a bum on the street or a corporation to both be able to give a million dollars in political donations? (This is a variation of the old saying about the "Magistry of the law, it forbids both poor people and rich people from sleeping underneath bridges"
. I.e is it equal protection to say millionaires can donate millions to get what they want, because people on welfare could do the same if they had the money.
We need to restrict the power of Wall Street and that means restrictions on Wall Street that the courts have ruled violate Wall Streets Equal Protection of the law. This case MAY provide a step in that direction, but lets see.
