About damn time.

Do you realize that not only Prop 8, but most all of the anti-marriage laws of the last years have been in most parts led by the Mormon Church and their follower?  (I bet you actually do, you are pretty connected.)

That being said, they really took alot of heat for not only defeating the Equal Rights Amendment for Women in the 1970's but also for sponsoring Prop 8 in an underhanded way.  I do realize many Mormons do support same-sex marriage and have been both horrified and disgusted by the actions of their church.  I'm sure others are tired of being the bad guys, and wish the few of those leaders would stop messing in the legal status of other people’s families.

Plus, around half of Utah is not Mormon anymore.  So you are probably correct.  But it could be both at the same time.  I could see couples getting married all across the country in states that allow it, and then going to their home state and suing to have it recognized under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause."  (Can you make class-action lawsuits across states?  They seemed to with the Tobacco Case a few years ago.)

Today was a huge win, but one vote in either way on either case could have set rights back a few years.

Yes, yes it is!

Sure, just like now you could marry a woman.  But you would have to kiss and make the sex with them.  So if your not gay, it sure seems like a whole lot of faking.

Doesn't seem worth it.

You know, it's really interesting.  People like to put those together, but they are actually quite different issues.  Polygamy law gets amazingly more complicated and the USA doesn’t have precedence on how to deal with it.

Example, say a guy had 3 wives, gets one more, then divorces #2.  Are the other 3 wives responsible for child support of the kids from wife #2?  What if something happens to the father, then do they have to pay for the ex’s kids?

What happens when a husband dies, and leave 3 wives, and 7 kids?  How is the property divided?  Does wife #1 get more?  What if wife #4 and he died on the wedding night?  Are they still married?  Does she get the same as wives #1 and #4.

Basically, today’s ruling does nothing regarding polygamy, other than to get people to think about it.

PS And let’s not forget some cultures have one wife and many husbands.  So then how would you know who is the bio father of the kids?  Would it matter?  They are both the kids dads.

Oh, those are completely separate things.  Please see my other post.

Ah, most significant rights of marriage, a whole 1,000+ plus only come from the Federal Government.  That is why it has to be a federal case. 

Let's say Billy and Kelly go in for a marriage license.  They all check through as available and such, but ops, the only thing that would stop their marriage in California yesterday was their gender.  If they are male-female they could get married, but if female-female yesterday they could not.  Now that single barrier of gender can no longer determined their ability to wed each other.

The reason is called Marriage Equality, because it grants equal marriage rights to both genders. 

A man could marry a man or a woman, and visa versa.

Hey, going to have to repeat myself a bit here, but let me explain. Those are completely separate things.  I have no idea what you would called that, but it is not making equal both genders the ability to marry either gender.

Let's say Billy and Kelly go in for a marriage license.  They all check through as available and such, but ops, the only thing that would stop their marriage in California yesterday was their gender.  If they are male-female they could get married, but if female-female yesterday they could not.  Now that single barrier of gender can no longer determined their ability to wed each other.

The reason is called Marriage Equality, because it grants equal marriage rights to both genders. 

A man could marry a man or a woman, and visa versa.   Polygamy, Incest, age of consent, etc have nothing to do with Marriage Equality.

Yes, yes, you did and I am glad it worked out that way!

I think the difference here is in what the church is doing, and what people believe.

For example, Catholic church is really anti-gay.  Most American Catholics support gay marraige.  (or maybe i'm thinking aborition, but either way.)

I mean shit, big corporations don't donate to the same people the majority of their workers support.

The real sad part though is combing DOMA and the Voting rights act.   They were both ruled unconsitutional, for pretty much the exact same reason!  5-4 splits both ways...

Yet the votes were essentially mirrored.

The Supreme court often gets it right.... but almost exclusvily due to Roberts annd Kennedy.  One of whom is usually willing to put aside what they want the law to be or what the law should be.... instead of what it is.

Even if you are like Scalia or Kagan and think the law your voting to support is vitally important to the health of the nation... if it's not consitutional.  That's how you should rule.

Either way, I generally expect gay marraige to get to around 2/3rds acceptance in the states, then the Supreme Court ot make another ruling supporting gay marriage everywhere via the same anti-discrimination rulings that were used to strike down interacial marriage bans.

Striking down of DOMA means you'll never see a federal law force one side or the other in terms of marriage. So while the short sighted view is that this is a wonderful day for same sex marriage (yada yada) it actually means it will still keep the states heavily against it in the clear without threat from a federal mandate.

It's the only reason why I praised the ruling. Power back to the states. This entire round of decisions has been knocking back federal power.