> Maybe the US will even follow suit and let the
>USSC define marriage in light of equality
>rights and current social context and whatnot,
>instead of the ridiculous (IMHO) idea of
>putting gay marriage bans on the ballot in
>Republican states.

Thing is, it wasn't just Republican states. Michigan and Oregon, both "blue" states, passed ballot props to ban same-sex marriage pretty handily this election.

It's still a baffling issue to me. We're not talking about a religious definition of marriage here. It's just a legal definition. Nobody is seriously demanding that the local Baptist Church be forced to marry gay people, or to believe that marriage is anything other than a union between a man and a woman. It's simply a legal definition. It's shorthand for "these people co-habitate and are in a commited relationship and would like to be able to have their partner on their health insurance or to insure death benefits and inheritence laws properly apply to them." It just doesn't seem like a big deal. It just doesn't make any difference to me if one guy wants to cover his male partner under his health insurance like married straight couples can. It doesn't matter to me if two women want to make sure that if one of them dies unexpectedly without a will, the other one will be legally entitled to her property, as straight couples can. I personally think they *should* be able to do these things. I can't think of one single argument why they *shouldn't* that doesn't come down to some variation of "my religion/personal belief doesn't approve of this" or much worse, "I don't like gays anyway so screw them."

Anyway, as far as the US Supreme Court goes, we currently have a majority of strict constructionists on the bench. What they *should* decide should a case ever be brought before them is that it's not their issue to decide so it's up to the states (which is currently how marriages work anyway, and why these ballot props were created in the first place). However, what they actually *would* decide is uknowable until it happens.

-- Dave