The undeniable, sharp and measurable uptick in global warming has come since 2004, in the nine years since marriage between gay people became legal in Massachusetts. Katrina anyone? Sandy? Melting ice caps? Rush Limbaugh's persistent sunburn? Real-world consequences.
Whatever the outcome of this week's historic Supreme Court hearings on same-sex marriage, one thing has become crystal clear: there is no longer, if there ever was, a rational argument to ban it. Are there any grounds for holding that position beyond simple prejudice?
This week these cases are about all of us, every single LGBT person in America. The outcome -- our equality, our freedom to choose whom to marry -- isn't in serious doubt. In the end, the power, courage and commitment of our community will not fail.
Over time, Supreme Court Justices have fine-tuned the circumstances under which the death penalty may still apply, but no set of laws or jurisprudence can undo wrongful executions -- or, it seems, completely prevent them.
DOMA clearly violates equal protection, but the Supreme Court could repeal it on more technical grounds, ruling either that House Republicans lack standing to defend it, or that it is an attack on states' rights. But either of these less desirable outcomes would still be a victory for marriage equality.
I don't see why proponents of marriage equality should cede ground when it comes to persuading people who quote the Bible as if that trumps every argument. Why not meet them on their own turf?
One of the most idiotic and offensive statements to come out of the Supreme Court marriage equality arguments -- and there were a few -- was when Justice Alito claimed during the Prop 8 arguments that the Internet and cellphones are older than same-sex marriage.
What's less well-known is that Obama's final epiphany on gay marriage was not just one man's conversion to a controversial cause. The politics of that conversion was profound; it put the White House stamp on it.
If conservatives really want to protect the sanctity of marriage perhaps the prohibitive measure that should be enacted is not a ban on gay marriage but a ban on heterosexual divorce.
What is clear is that we are far from done with discussing these issues at the Supreme Court. The past two days' hearings made it clear in many ways that follow on litigation will come to sort out other questions for the Court to decide.
It is not the Constitution that changes. It is we, the people. When applying an old principle to a modern situation, we need not be hostages of history.
The state changed its equal protection requirement, so that it now says in effect that California shall provide equal protection of the laws to all its citizens, EXCEPT same-sex couples who want to marry.
Can we at least agree that so-called traditional marriage is a phenomenon of Western civilization? Those who oppose marriage equality based on biblical teachings must know that the notion of traditional marriage ends in the 4th chapter of Genesis.
I am a Canadian woman who has been married to an American woman for sixteen years. My two sons have been raised in a world where having two moms is totally normal -- and wonderful.
Incrementalism is always hard to argue. That's one of the lessons both this particular issue and my years spent blogging on politics has taught me. Gay marriage has become such an issue for me. Marriage is a fundamental human right, and it should be seen as an "unalienable" right.
Because of the justices' skepticism regarding BLAG lawyer Paul Clement's arguments in favor of DOMA, it seems quite likely that there are at least five votes on the court to invalidate it, especially if such a decision were based on issues of federalism rather than on an equal protection question.