The Supreme’s and Same-Sex Marriage Ruling – Apprehensive – Across Ideological Lines - Individual State’s Most Likely Focus of Eventual Ruling.

Despite the protests (both pro and con) at the Court, the justices may end up taking this Religious Issue back to the States

As the Supreme Court is weighing the options as to the arguments for and against the Defense of Marriage Act it is apparent that the Justices are somewhat uncomfortable with a federal ruling, rather, it is apparent they are looking at “Gay Marriage” as a larger issue, one which, they do not feel comfortable making a ruling that would give a federal status, one way or the other – and most likely will turn it back to the states. (CS Monitor) In some instances the Gay Marriage decisions is being compared to Roe vs. Wade, a decision which even Justice Ginsburg had doubts. It should have been left to the states, although she approved of the choice, the ruling in Roe vs. Wade, was considered “bad law”. The court at the time, 1973, had more information on abortion and the states, than it now does with Gay Marriage.(ABA Journal)

Justice Alito suggested that the concept was newer than the internet or cell phones. In listening to the arguments, and the subsequent questions by the Justices it became clear that they all were uncomfortable with ruling on this subject. For current orals arguments, go to www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguements See Hollingsworth v. Perry

Although no one knows what the outcome maybe, given the Justices and their individual ideological stands, the fact that they are approaching the issue as if it were a hot potato, suggests it will be pushed back to the states - where it belongs, along with the Roe Vs. Wade Decision and any decision that should be outside of the Federal venue.

In this opinion, the concept of “marriage” is the issue, whereby, it has religious connotations. Therefore as marriage is considered now a contract in legal terms, one might be tempted to push all marriage contracts into partnership contracts, which would solve everything – this would separate the Church from the State. As of now, with the religious connotations attached, the states and the High Court must be aware of those consequences. The crux of the matter lays in the name – not so much the benefits et al, that could be realized by all parties, if marriage were renamed a partnership - separated from the religious connotation. Those that wanted their marriage to be consecrated by a church, would have the full benefits to do so, and those who’s partnerships fell outside most religious boundaries, would still have the benefits of a partnership – thus killing the game of political football that is constantly in play.