If the Supreme Court today made a ruling on the constitutionality of gay marriage, what would it be?

Would they be for it or against it?


Most of the recent (and by recent I mean a decade or two) rulings have been for protecting the rights of gay people. However, Gay marriage is treated like something else in this country. What would the verdict be?If the Supreme Court today made a ruling on the constitutionality of gay marriage, what would it be?
my guess would be against it - whether right or wrongIf the Supreme Court today made a ruling on the constitutionality of gay marriage, what would it be?
The Supreme Court wouldn't be either ';for'; or ';against'; it; they would just make a ruling that addresses a key point of dispute that has arisen between two eligible parties (and which happens to involve gay or same-sex marriage in the topic of dispute).





If, for example, a Federal Court (e.g. 9th Circuit) were to rule that the current Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law in 1996) was unconstitutional and that all States under its jurisdiction had to grant full rights to same-sex couples who were lawfully wed in Massachusetts, the Supreme Court would likely take the case and rule against the Federal Court (and uphold the DoMA Act.)





On the other hand, if a Federal Court (e.g. Fifth Circuit) were to rule that since all States that court have prohibited same-sex marriage, those prohibitions extend to all points of contract law involving same-sex couples, and thus, the State of Louisiana can prohibit a Louisiana resident from receiving a bequest of property from his same-sex partner, the Supreme Court would also likely take the case and overrule that court (and hold that same-sex marriage prohibitions cannot overrule long-standing points of law and guaranteed due-process rights.)





So in the two hypothetical cases, one could be seen as being ';against'; gay marriage, the other as being ';for';, but on closer inspection, neither ruling has anything much to do with gay marriage per se.
I would be surprised if they took the case. Marriage is governed by state - not federal - laws.





To strike down a state ban/prohibition on gay marriage, the Supreme Court would have to create a new right - or extend the right to privacy, and I don't think that there are enough justices on the current court to do that.
I think the Supreme court would surprise on actually hearing the case and its ruling.





Federal Tax laws address married couples and there are benefits. Gays are denied these benefits and thus are not being treated equally under the law.





It cannot be argued marriage must be between a man and a woman because they can produce a child and a gay couple cannot. There are many straight couples who cannot or choose not to have children yet they are legally married. They marry for the same reasons gay couples want to be married. There is no basis in fact for denying gay marriage.





The Federal government should never have made marriage part of the tax code. Marriage should have remained a function of the Church with no legal standing pertaining to assets of any kind.





Civil unions should exist legally for both straight and gay couples with uniform rights under the law.
marriage is based on english common law and religion it is illegal by definition under the seperation of church and state the supreme court MUST recognize this and act accordingly
They'd prolly ban it. It sux I know, but that's what we get having a Neo-con like bush in office.





Personally I think that gay marraige can be done this way:





If churches don't want gays getting married, fine then you don't have to let them in your church, but don't get all pissy if they go and get married in the courthouse.
why ? Gay marriage ?


In fifty years (or so) even Etero marriage will disappear.


A contract lasting average ONE year, you STILL CALL IT A MARRIAGE ?