"The debate is more philosophical than legal because this is virgin territory for the federal courts, no pun intended. Ultimately, it boils down to the personal views of the judges who will pass judgment as the case makes it way through the federal courts, even if they couch their decisions in dense legalese – and perhaps just one judge's views."
From this article: http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/st...
EXACTLY. There is no judge who is "doing some grand correct thing" that stands before god with rectitude and might. They're basically *VOTING* based on their own *OPINIONS*.
Either you LUCK OUT and get what you want from the court, or you have to keep fighting by other means.
But *no* legal decision -- no matter HOW legal it SOUNDS -- has any "grand supremacy" over any other opinion, for any reason whatsoever.
Except for one thing, and I have seen two articles point it out.
Just one thing.
The *pro-gay* are on the side of *rendering relationships EQUAL*, and that is a very, very powerful statement to make. The anti-gay are blatantly on the side of keeping them *NOT* equal, and strive and strive and strive to *make it sound like they're keeping everything equal*... which is your big, big clue that they know they're not, and are trying to rewrite the rules of logic, basically.
You ask one question: Can each individual marry the single, consenting person of their choice?... and you have destroyed anti-gay logic in a single stroke.
I wrote this post because recently, one or two posters are quoting court proceedings that were anti-gay, and I'm having no difficulty wading through the judges' language and pointing out how it is ILLOGICAL and ARGUABLE. These people are stupid.