Silver lining regarding states enacting anti-marriage laws?

[Vickers]

It seems like the more states that do it, the more likelihood that there will be a (SUCCESSFUL!) Supreme Court challenge. I mean, it only took one Roe v. Wade, right?

:shrug:

My optimistic nature requires that I try to see the good that can come out of this idiocy.

:thumbsup:

[onehandle]

1. Unlikely with the decades of a right-wing SCOTUS we are stuck with.

As always, thanks Ralph!

[Vickers]

3. Oops, meant to reply to you in my post below.

:blush:

[Vickers]

2. But they have to have some CONSTITUTIONAL basis for their vote, right?

I know the wording on some of the state referendums was misleading, but the SC has to have their ducks in a row (legally speaking).

I know, I know, this is (largely) the same crowd who put Idiot George at the helm...

[Ozymanithrax]

5. The Constitution means whatever an individual Justice wants it to mean.

Nothing more and nothing less.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. The SCOTUS is conservative now and will remain conservative for a long time.

You must have a court amenable to such a decision. Unless a bunch of conservtive supreme court justices decide to leave, it would take about 12 to 16 years at the normal rate of replacement to swing the court into line with such a decision.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Ever hear of Plessy v. Ferguson?

That ruling took over 50 years to be overturned.