I WOULD HAVE DONE A MUCH BETTER JOB OF ARGUING IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE THAN DID

http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/29/in-depth-key-questions-and-remarks-from-the-supreme-court-oral-arguments-on-marriage/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=saturday&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojvqXKZKXonjHpfsX64%2B4vWKS3i4kz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMS8tqNK%2BTFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHmHONESTLY, I WOULD HAVE DONE A MUCH BETTER JOB OF ARGUING IN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE THAN DID THE PLAINTIFFS.

The article is quite good: Roe v Wade did not allow the democratic process to work and therefore created an unsettled matter of profound divisiveness. The argument presented is that the states can continue the experiment. The court has no interest in repeating another roe-v-wade, and cutting short the democratic process.

This is of course how the court should always have acted.

But we must grasp that progressives are immoral, unscientific authoritarians and conservatives are moral, scientific, preventers-of-authoritarianism.

In the end (as Eli Has stated) the problem is the term ‘marriage’. There is no reason that one cannot have all social and political benefits of heterosexual marriage, yet call it something else.

I made that argument pretty thoroughly back in 2002.