From the BibleBeltBlogger:
In June 2003, when the Supreme Court legalized homosexual conduct in all 50 states, the court insisted its ruling had nothing to do with gay marriage. ‘Baloney,’ Justice Scalia replied.
In Lawrence v. Texas, Scalia wrote in dissent that the court’s decision “leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. …Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. …This case ‘does not involve’ the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.”
Scalia foresaw the “judicial imposition of homosexual marriage” in the wake of Lawrence v. Texas.
By overturning Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 decision upholding the states’ rights to criminalize homosexual conduct, the court was making gay marriage all but inevitable, he suggested.
He was right. Five months later, in November 2003, the highest court in Massachusetts ruled that laws barring gay marriage were unconstitutional. Earlier this year, California followed suit.
Dozens of states have passed constitutional amendments barring the recognition of same-sex marriage. But these laws will soon be tested.
I’m not arguing for or against gay marriage in this post — that’s a thornet’s nest for somebody else to poke with a stick. I’m just pointing out that Scalia was right about the consequences of Lawrence v. Texas.
Barring a constitutional amendment, it may be inevitable that gay marriage will, eventually, become legal in all 50 states. Here’s why. . .
Read it all, and realize that if states cannot determine who gets married, they certainly have no grounds to determine how many get married.