Same-sex marriage will not change a single day-to-dy thing for Americans

And can someone please explain to me why we need gay sex education?

The purpose behind sex education is to educate children on the CONSEQUENCES of sex.

There is NO need WHATSOEVER to describe gay sex to children. They don't get different STD's than straight people.

The consequence of gay sex is simply an extremely high rate of STD's. Something that is addressed without needing to talk about gay sex.

Straight people need sex education because there are STD's as well as consequences of pregnancy.

Sex education is supposed to be an education on the consequences of having sex with the intent to REDUCE sexual interaction among children.

Homosexual sex education is SOLELY based upon STD's (which are already covered) and how gay people get their rocks off. That is NOT the intent behind sex education.

I challenge any of you to provide a justifiable reason as to why children need to be inundated with the homosexual agenda in sex ed.

 

Any Constitution not written by those who have passed on naturally expires according to the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson.

That I believe the Constitution is a relic is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since it is still the law of the land. Patrick Henry, while he opposed the Constitution at ratification, once it was put into force, nevertheless joined the Federalist Party, the party that urged for the Constitution's ratification. He was also able to spot unconstitutionality when he saw it.

I'm noticing something more and more on the right, complete idiocy. I mean first we have the rape culture of the GOP's politicians, and then a lack of basic logical principles on the part of the people that support them the most.

As I said, public businesses cannot discriminate, else there would still be whites-only lunch counters dotting the South. Your logic is flawed, if not nonexistent in its entirety.

Or, as I suspect, the speaker may have mentioned anal sex, which that article blasted as "gay sex" despite the fact that I know several straight people who enjoy anal. Protected anal sex, if done properly and protected, can be pleasurable to many males, gay or straight. The prostate, which, when stimulated can give results similar to a female's G-spot, is best stimulated through the anus.

Pardon me if I don't take the word of someone who wasn't there, is relying on likely third-hand accounts, and is frankly clueless about what I bet I can safely assume is the vast majority of sexuality.

Cite a peer reviewed study of this claim or it's bull.

I would argue that any two-parent household is a better alternative than a one-parent household. Plus the fact that most children raised by at least one gay parent have ended up being well-adjusted and productive members of society, and most of them, like the general public, were straight.

What makes you think a homosexual couple would be doing that in the middle of the day around the time their child would be coming home? Chances are, one partner would be working anyway.

 

You and PTPL are simply ignorant of the facts.

Immediately after acceptance of homosexual marriage in Mass. in Dec. 2003 there were school wide assemblies celebrating homosexual marriage. National pro-homosexual groups distributed literature which informed the children that it was now to be considered a "normal part of society".

They were given sheets that had Marriage "myths" by the homosexual group Gay and Lesbian Advocate Defenders.
One of their myths is that the purpose of marriage had nothing to do with procreation.
Another of these myths is that a child is better off when raised by a mother and a father.

So the children in Mass. are being brainwashed in the schools by ONLY being allowed to receive one position on the homosexual marriage debate. Furthermore our children, if they express disagreement with the homosexual agenda are PUNISHED for doing so.

Within months, the homosexual agenda was brought into MIDDLE schools. Pro-homosexual groups distributed literature titled "Love Makes a Family: Portraits of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People and their Families". In 2004 a middle school Teacher told a radio station that the gay-marriage ruling had opened up the door for teaching homosexuality in their class stating "give me a break it's legal now".

The following year it was in Elementary school curricula with hostilities towards parents who disagreed. They were provided booklets called "Who's in a Family" which told elementary school children that homosexual families are just another kind of family, just like their own parents. The pictures showed families with 2 mothers and 2 fathers. When a Lexington parent, David Parker, demanded to be informed when this type of literature was going to be given to his kindergartener and to be able to opt-out of the information. Rather than work with the parent, the school officials had him arrested and put in jail overnight at the meeting for refusing to relent from his position. School officials continued to refuse after outrage from parents in the surrounding community.

The next year 2nd Graders at the same school were read a book "King & King" about two men who fall in love with each other and end up getting married and at the end has a picture of the two men kissing each other. When parents complained about this the school officials told them that they had no obligation to inform them of the information or allow them to opt their child out. They filed a federal lawsuit which the federal judges stated that because homosexual marriage is legal in MA, the schools actually had a DUTY to NORMALIZE homosexual relationships and schools had no duty to inform parents of this information or allow the parents to opt their children out. In fact, according to the ruling, acceptance of homosexuality is now a matter of "good citizenship".

School libraries have also radically changed with many books normalizing homosexual marriage. One example is called "Courting Equality" supplied to schools by a major homosexual activist organization. Activist teachers began to posting pictures of their same sex spouses in their classrooms and bringing those spouses to functions with primary and elementary school children.

Furthermore, when a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was gaining steam in MA, there was a full-fledged campaign by homosexual advocates along with the school system to get students to actively support same-sex marriage ESPECIALLY if their parents were against it. They were even recruited IN SCHOOL to help march in gay pride parades carrying pro-homosexual banners. Isn't that nice, the homosexuals along with our government are now using our children as tools against us.

This doesn't even go into the topics about allowing transgenders and boys who claim to be girls in boys bodies to go into locker rooms and bathrooms with 12 year old little girls.

The homosexual marriage acceptance in MA even had unintended consequences on business. All insurers are required to recognize gay spouses in their coverage including auto, health, life etc etc. Businesses must recognize them in all benefits and activities regarding both employees and customers. People who express religious objections can get fired from their jobs for disagreeing with same-sex marriage even if ANOTHER EMPLOYEE brought it up.

Another consequence is that gay activists want to "test" homosexual acceptance of businesses. So they go into those businesses and fondle, kiss and make out with their same-sex partners to determine if those businesses accept homosexuality to their liking. If not, they report them and the businesses can be fined and punished.

The legal profession and judicial system is also affected. The bar exam now tests lawyers on their knowledge of same-sex marriage law. In 2007 a Boston man refused to answer a question about homosexual marriage in the affirmative and he was failed on his test for it. Lawyers in MA who practice family law are increasingly required to attend same-sex marriage seminars and if they are not willing to take same-sex marriage cases, several have been fired from their firms.

One of the more insidious of the problems is with the government changes. Marriage licenses no longer say "Husband" and "Wife" it now says Party A and Party B. If you are a state Justice of the peace you are now REQUIRED to perform same-sex marriages even if you have religious objections. Some were forced to resign rather than comply.

There is no meaningful debate in MA about gay marriage, not because people don't still think it's disgusting and disagree with it. But because there has become a political climate int he state where politicians and anyone of any significant power or position is afraid to disagree with gay marriage because they will be labeled bigots and wanting to take away freedoms from people. So now we're not even legitimately able to have a debate on the topic because of the climate of intimidation and fear the homosexual advocates have created in MA.

In Boston the members of the city council gather to pay respects to the homosexual flag. That's right. They pay respects to that queer looking rainbow colored flag. They then fly that flag over Boston city hall for a week.

Within a year of the acceptance of homosexual marriage, the states adoption and foster care workers went through a massive indoctrination of "LGBT youth acceptance" ran by the radical National Gay and Lesbian task force. The stated intention is that those working with children must be trained that working with children with homosexuality and transgenderism were "normal".

Homosexuals who adopt can revise children's existing birth certificates to list them as Parent A and Parent B.

On May 15, 2013 a rep of the Mass. Dept of Children and Families told a Boston Bar Association forum that they are weeding out adoptive and foster parents who are not willing to WHOLLY accept and support LGBT identification.

Within 5 months of acceptance of homosexuality in Mass. the requirement for an STD test before a marriage certificate is provided was eliminated. This is despite an INCREASE in syphilis and HIV cases in homosexual men.

Gay domestic violence has become so prolific in Mass. that it now has it's own budget item in the State Budget. It has gotten so bad that gay domestic partner violence literature is now distributed at public homosexual events, including children at "youth pride" events.

But lets not forget the "little black book" handed out to teens at Brookline HS on April 30, 2005. It was produced by the Mass. Dept. of Public Health, Boston public health along with several national homosexual agenda groups. Among other things it gives tips to boys on how to perform sex acts on other males along with a directory of bars in boston where young men can go for random anonymous sexual encounters. Some messages that the public health departments gave to our children in those books was that "you have the right to enjoy homosexual sex without shame or stigma" and "you have the right to safer sex materials that speak to your desires".

The official stance of the Mass Public Health Policy the unusual and often horrible diseases and issues surrounding homosexual behavior should not be considered a public health problem. The medical community should not stigmatize or discourage it, but instead should put more resources to support it.

In 2011 a prominent physician in Boston objected to the hospital being involved with gay pride activities while pointing out the medical health risks of homosexuality. The hospital threatened to fire him stating that "homosexuality is now legal" and that such objections amounted to harassment and discrimination.

Any church or religious group that denies same-sex marriage, even within their own walls, can face a wave of threats, harassment and terrorism. In 2005 Tremont Temple held a religious conference on issues surrounding homosexuality and gay marriage. Over 100 homosexual activists attempted to storm the church using bullhorns and screaming obscene slogans. They even dragged a coffin to the front door. In 2006, the same church held a televised heterosexual marriage ceremony and they were again harassed by homosexuals holding signs disparaging heterosexuality and screaming at the people who entered and exited. The same year a Catholic group held a traditional marriage rally in downtown werster (sp), MA. Homosexual activists swarmed the area screaming bigots and disgusting obscene chants. There are dozens of examples like these.

There are many, many, many other examples of how homosexual marriage will impact peoples lives.

Get the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of here with that BS.

 

Nothing guarantees further progress and substantiates the moral convictions of most Americans as effectively as hateful, irrational tirades such as this. Your neglecting to identify the sewer you fished it out of may actually be an encouraging sign that you still possess the remnant of a conscience and are embarrassed by such hateful screes.

You will find a homophobic Russia, Nigeria, or an Islamic theocracy better accommodates your attitude.


.

 

This bovine excrement is straight from the pages of the delusional hate group Mass Resistance:

Hate group designation[edit]

Since March 2008, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has listed MassResistance as an active anti-gay hate group.[3][5][26]

In 1996 MassResistance's leader, Brian Camenker claimed that suicide prevention programs aimed at gay youth actually were “put together by homosexual activists to normalize homosexuality”. MassResistance also asserted that groups such as the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which support school anti-bullying programs, actually want to "lure children into homosexuality and, very possibly, sadomasochism".[3]

MassResistance has also insisted that gays were "trying to get legislation passed to allow sex with animals", later adding, "They [gays and lesbians] are pushing perversion on our kids".[3]

MassResistance has made claims that no homosexuals died in the The Holocaust of World War II, that the "pink triangle the Nazis forced imprisoned gays to wear actually signified Catholic priests", and that "gays are dangerous to kids". They have also made comments regarding "skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence"[3][27] and called a gay pride event a "depraved" display that featured "a great deal of obviously disturbed, dysfunctional, and extremely self-centered people whose aim was to push their agenda".[3]

 

You might want to read something that is truthful, objective and scientific:
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/experts/lee-badgett/effects-marriage-equality-masurvey/

 

If you claim that something I said happened didn't happen then by all means name it. I'll be happy to provide you a source. And please don't say everything. If you think every single statement up there is incorrect then start with the first that you think didn't happen and I'll be happy to post you a source.

Notice, he didn't address any argument made. He just called me a homophobe.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry. What does that have to do with anything I posted?

- - - Updated - - -

These aren't simply claims from a hate group lol

Are you claiming these things didn't happen? If you are. Which ones? I'll find you a source.

 

Except that all falls apart when I point out that the ability to procreate is not required in order to marry. Procreation is entirely irrelevant to who can marry. That's why sterile, geriatric, paralyzed and platonic couples can and do marry.

 

It's not so much a matter of what happened. It's how it's presented. It's propaganda, it's biased. Just one example: "The myth that marriage has nothing to do with procreation" Myth? You can argue about whether or not marriage is about procreation, but this is putting a negative spin on it as though no debate was needed. And "portraying homosexuality as normal" Portraying?? Again,m a negative biased spin. No debate needed right? Children being brainwashed ? Really? Punished??? How?

 

Did you even read? WE didn't call it a Myth. That's how it was presented in the homosexual literature that was presented to children. We are not the ones claiming that there is no debate needed. We are claiming there SHOULD be debate. The homosexuals and their advocates are the ones stating that it's no longer debatable.

It's brainwashing because they refuse to allow any other point of view and any other point of view expressed that doesn't accept homosexuality is punished.

And yes it is PUNISHED.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/22/texas-school-punishes-boy-for-opposing-homosexuality/
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/stu...shment-expressing-his-religious-views-against
http://www.christianpost.com/news/w...hed-by-school-for-gay-adoption-beliefs-68061/

And please don't just say "OMG Christian sources!!?!!?" If you claim that what the source says happened, actually did not happen, then by all means express that and I'll be happy to provide you a different source and prove you wrong again.

 

You should certainly consider where you find what you post, of course, but I'm pleased with the progress and comfortable in sharing the moral values of most Americans.

As I noted, you might be more comfortable with the party line in Islamic republics, Russia, or Nigeria.

 

From the GLAD website:

GLAD's Legislative and Public Policy Work

GLAD's legislative legal work focuses on protecting same-sex couples and families, fighting proposals to incorporate discrimination in the law, ensuring access to insurance, keeping lgbt people safe from violence, working to end employment discrimination and strengthening needle exchange programs. GLAD works with legislative allies and grassroots advocates to craft thoughtful and thorough legislation, analyze proposals that threaten our communities, provide expert testimony at legislative hearings, bring together legal and non-legal specialists to testify before the legislature, and develop strategy with our community partners. https://www.glad.org/event/lee

What do you have a problem with there? What is so nefarious ?

 

Yeah, Skinner v Oklahoma in 1942 said

Then Loving v Virginia in 1967 shortened the quote,

Homosexual relations have no relation whatsoever to "existence and survival of the race". Only heterosexual relations perpetuate the human race. The court confirmed this inherent link to procreation in Zablocki v Redhail.

These recent court cases creating this constitutional right to gay marriage think the fact that old infertile couples are allowed to marry, magically erases thousands of years of marriages history. Its absurd.

 

Again, do you refute anything I posted? Or are you just having diarrhea of the mouth?

 

Well I didn't say anything about GLAD specifically. However, in what you posted, I have a problem with the bolded part. That essentially says "we're going to use every resource available to shove the homosexual agenda down your throat, whether you like it or not, through legislation, judicial action, indoctrination of your children and every other resource we can muster to force acceptance of homosexuality on you and your children and silence any opposition."

 

If you want to interpret it that way. It's what the anti equality forced do. Man up and take your own medicine

Be prepared.....Except the part about indoctrinating children. Nobody wants to indoctrinate children. Educate, yes. There is a difference although I realize that you conservative types are not real big on meaningful education. Read my signature line. Your cause is lost.

 

Adoption rights are a separate issue.

 

No see, it IS indoctrination and there is no debate of that. The reason it is indoctrination is because you teach one side and one side ONLY and any opposition to that side is punished and silenced as quickly and harshly as possible. That is not education, that is indoctrination.

And I could care less what subhuman sexual deviants like incestuous couples, homosexuals, child molesters, beastiality participants and the plethora of other disgusting perverts, or those who support them, think about me.

BTW you should probably change your sig line because "marriage equality" is a term used to define far more than "homosexual marriage". It's a term used by incestuous couples, polygamists, beastiality participants and child molesters, or as homosexual advocates have now dubbed them, "minor-attracted persons" to describe their quest for "marriage equality" as well.

That is of course unless you agree with them as well. Of course you certainly have no leg to stand on to reject them when you accept homosexual marriage.

But you are attempting to take the conversation off-topic. The topic is that our daily lives won't change one single bit because of acceptance of homosexual marriage and that is complete and utter bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

I, for one, think churches should not be tax exempt in the first place, without regard to any issue related to same sex marriage.

 

^we need a thread dedicated to bold claims, just so we can call people out on them in time. What makes you think it'll be passed in 3-5 years?

And you're right about the 14th amendment extending rights and protections to the states, but I always find this bit interesting. You don't usually hear states' rights advocates push the 14th of course, but some of them think it's misinterpreted, but precedent stands nonetheless. What makes it interesting is that the liberals are quick to cite the 14th's extension when we're talking about equal rights for homosexuals, but dash it all, it doesn't extend the right to bear arms to the states!

See, I find that I look at the court much differently than most posters. As long as a judge has a clear judicial philosophy and is consistent, I have no problem with them. I only take issue when they have a clear political philosophy and use it to make judicial decisions.

 

What's the "other side" that should be taught? That gays are subhuman sexual deviants like incestuous couples, homosexuals, child molesters, bestiality participants and disgusting perverts? That's like saying that the teaching of creationism is the other side of the evolution story-as though it was equal some how and not horse(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

It's not such a bold claim. I think that 3-5 years or less is a fair assessment. If you look at the DOMA and proposition 8 cases, and a few others, the direction that the courts are going in is clear-the writing is on the wall. Right now, we have 3 or 4 states where a federal judge ruled that the state bans on same sex marriage is unconstitutional. Any or all of them will get to SCOTUS and they all have the potential of ending this sooner than later. Read more:

The Meaning of the DOMA Ruling and the Direction of SCOTUS Going Forward by the Progressive Patriot. 2.15.14

Will gays be afforded the status of a protected “suspect class” and afforded Strict Scrutiny at the SCOTUS? If so, the marriage debate, at least in the courts is over.

The recent federal appeals court decision, finding the Defense of Marriage Act in conflict with the equal protection of the laws, guaranteed to all persons in the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment, broke new ground when the two-judge majority determined that a legal standard called “heightened scrutiny” should be applied to its review. Windsor v. United States of America is the first case where any federal court has taken this step.
http://www.examiner.com/article/how-heightened-should-judicial-scrutiny-be-for-gay-marriage-cases

Subsequently SCOTUS ruled that The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday by a 5-4 vote.

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma-decision_n_3454811.html

Yes, the high court upheld the appeals court ruling on the basis of the 5th amendment’s due process clause as opposed to 14th ‘s equal protection under the law provision.
And……… the court’s majority ruled that the power of the individual state in defining marriage "is of central relevance" and the decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry is "of immense import." The state, the court ruled, "used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community." The court held that DOMA "because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage."

DOMA’s "demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law," the majority ruled. "This raises a most serious question under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment."

True , the court found a way to invalidate the section of DOMA that denied federal benefits to same sex married couples, while actually re-affirming the rights of the states to define marriage, and in fact enhancing their ability to bestow, or withhold, all of the rights and benefits of marriage on same sex couples.

However, it’s important to note what they did not say as well. The never said that no restrictions on the right of states to regulate marriage would ever be placed on them. In fact, there is already precedent that establishes the fact that the right of states to regulate marriage is not absolute. That precedent of course is Loving v. Virginia. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

There are two differences between Loving, and same sex marriage cases. One is that the right to same sex marriage has not yet been established to be a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment. Secondly, homosexuals have not yet been established to be a “suspect class” as are racial minorities which would afford them the right to strict scrutiny and thus compel the state to prove a compelling government interest in denying gays the right to marry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny However, both of those factors can change:
In the Loving case. In 1967, Chief Justice Earl Warren scribed the unanimous opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court. In it, he declared that, “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” If the highest court in the land defining marriage as one of the “basic civil rights of man” doesn’t qualify marriage as a legal right, I don’t know what would.

Loving is actually one of Fourteen cases since 1888, where the SCOTUS has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

It is not a major stretch of the imagination to see how, at some point SCOTUS could view gays in the same light as those racial minorities and declare that same sex marriage is a right as is inter racial marriage today and thus requiring strict scrutiny of any laws denying them equal rights including the right to marry .

The other road to strict scrutiny would be to establish homosexuals as a suspect class. To apply strict scrutiny on the basis of class, the class must have experienced a history of discrimination, must be definable as a group based on "obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics," be a minority or "politically powerless," and its characteristics must have little relationship to the government's policy aims or the ability of the group's members to contribute to society.

So how close are the courts to establishing gays as a suspect class and as such applying strict scrutiny to the laws that adversely affect them? In the Proposition 8, Judge Vaughn Walker at the US district court level stated that proposition 8 was based on traditional notions of opposite-sex marriage and on moral disapproval of homosexuality, neither of which is a legal basis for discrimination. He noted that gays and lesbians are exactly the type of minority that strict scrutiny was designed to protect. Judge Walker characterized the right at issue as "the right to marry", which, he wrote, "has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household", citing Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut. He went on to say that "race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage". Judge Walker then found Proposition 8 unconstitutional because it does not pass even a rational basis review (as he explains in the Equal Protection context), much less strict scrutiny. The point here is that Walker was willing to rule on the basis of strict scrutiny. http://www.ask.com/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzenegger?qsrc=3044

And during the proposition 8 hearing at SCOTUS there was this exchange between JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and Mr Coope, attorney for the petitioners: http://www.livescience.com/28194-proposition-8-supreme-court-transcript.html
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Outside of the -¬ outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a State using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the Government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?
MR. COOPER: Your Honor, I cannot. I do not have any -- anything to offer you in that regard. I think marriage is -¬
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: All right. If that -¬ if that is true, then why aren't they a class? If they're a class that makes any other discrimination improper, irrational, then why aren't we treating them as a class for this one thing? Are you saying that the interest of marriage is so much more compelling than any other interest as they could have?

So what is the likelihood that gays will be declared a suspect class by SCOTUS? To date, only three State Supreme Courts have recognized gays as a “suspect class” — California, Iowa and Connecticut — and not co-incidentally, they all ruled in favor of gay marriage. Massachusetts also ruled for gay marriage, but what’s interesting about that case is they never said gays are a “suspect class.” The Court said we don’t even need to go there — because there is no possible rational basis to deny gays to marry. Of course, all these cases were about an individual state’s constitution — not the federal.

In addition, Colorado’s Supreme Court — in Evans v. Romer (1994) — said gays are a suspect class under the federal Constitution, and repealed Colorado’s Amendment 2. The decision to throw out Amendment 2 was affirmed in Romer v. Evans (1996), but the U.S. Supreme Court said they were doing so “on a rationale different from that adopted by the State Supreme Court.” Justice Kennedy went on to argue Amendment 2 doesn’t even pass the lenient rational basis test. That could mean one of two things: either he meant gays are not a suspect class, or like Massachusetts he was saying “we don’t even have to go there.” A footnote in Romer does explicitly say that the Court “evidently agrees” gays are not a suspect class, but that was part of Scalia’s dissent – so it is not binding precedent.

In other words, the feds have not found gays to be a “suspect class” but arguably they never really said the opposite. What would have to be proven that gays are a suspect class?

It appears to me that it’s only a matter of time before the SCOTUS throws out every state ban on gay marriage and requires all states to afford gays marriage equality They will be declared a suspect class and /or same sex marriage will be elevated to the status of a fundamental right, just as marriage per se has been

Additional cases where heightened scrutiny or strict scrutiny were a factor, or considered in the case:

In 2009, Iowa Supreme Court invalidated state law banning gay marriage, ruling that laws specifically affecting gays and lesbians required stricter scrutiny. If US Supreme Court follows Iowa's reasoning, gay marriage may soon be protected by the 14th Amendment” The Court stated that the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution requires that laws treat alike all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law,[11] and concluded that homosexual persons are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons for purposes of Iowa's marriage laws.[12] The Court applied the standard of review known as intermediate scrutiny to assess the government's objectives as described by the county: maintaining traditional marriage, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varnum_v._Brien

U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, which voters passed in 2004, violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws.”Applying the law as it is required to do, the court holds that Utah’s prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process under the law. The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.” In citing the 14th Amendment he is basically saying the he has afforded the case strict scrutiny status and by talking about “fundamental rights, he is saying that there is in fact a right to same sex marriage.

In May 2012, the Oklahoma Senate passed SCR 62, a non-binding resolution reaffirming marriage between one man and one women. It passed 40-4, with 4 senators absent from the vote.
In April 2013, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed HCR 1009, a non-binding resolution reaffirming marriage between one man and one women and urging the Supreme Court to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act and the right of states to regulate marriage. It passed 84-0, with 71 Republicans and 13 Democrats voting yes, while 16 Democrats walked out of the chamber instead of voting in protest. Republican John Trebilcock was also absent of the vote. The Oklahoma Senate later that month approved the non-binding resolution.

Then on 1.14.14 A federal judge in Oklahoma ruled that the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.U.S. District Judge Terence Kern’s ruling is on hold pending appeal, so same-sex couples in Oklahoma will not be able to marry immediately, reports the Human Rights Campaign.

Of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the issue of sexual orientation discrimination and equal protection, the decision said:

The Supreme Court has not expressly reached the issue of whether state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution. However, Supreme Court law now prohibits states from passing laws that are born of animosity against homosexuals, extends constitutional protection to the moral and sexual choices of homosexuals, and prohibits the federal government from treating opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages differently. There is no precise legal label for what has occurred in Supreme Court jurisprudence beginning with Romer in 1996 and culminating in Windsor in 2013, but this Court knows a rhetorical shift when it sees one.

He concluded:
Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights.... Part A of the Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment excludes the Bishop couple, and all otherwise eligible same-sex couples, from this privilege without a legally sufficient justification.

Http://www.advocate.com/politics/ma...king-judge-says-ok-marriage-equality-oklahoma

Again, a Judge is saying that a ban on same sex marriage does not even meet the rational basis test, much less a strict scrutiny standard

 

tl;dr

But as to the first bit, yes, the court may decide soon, though they've been seemingly intentionally pushing the issue off for a while now. To call it a dead cert that the court will determine state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional is, well, a bit silly. Expect it in three years?

 

You're apparently a bit trigger happy to call it "silly" so quickly. I know that you didn't take the time to read and digest all of that, now did you?

 

How about the side that's been the prominent and accepted position on homosexuality and homosexual marriage for the past few hundred years in the USA?

But see you don't want to allow that side to speak. Therefore you are not "educating"; you are indoctrinating.

You see YOU are on the side that claims there is no longer a debate.