| HipHopGodd said:
|
You could say the same about any of the justices. They are each appointed by politicians, after all. Kennedy is the closest to being unbiased, and he's really the swing vote on the SCotUS that decides close cases like this.
While this decision gets us closer to "equality", it really doesn't address the most important issue. True "equality" would extend benefits to polygamists and singles as well, rendering the benefits of government defined marriage unnecessary. In other words; the government has no business being involved in marriage in any form whatsoever. Why do we need government to enter into a committed relationship with someone? Any problems can be resolved via contract without third party coercion.
(Disclaimer; I'm not gay, but I fully support the right of gays to marry and whatnot. No problems at all with it. My problem is with government sticking its nose into marriage in the first place.)
