Author Topic: Gay-rights advocates asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to remove a pr  (Read 1620 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ms

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(06-20) 18:32 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Gay-rights advocates asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to remove a proposed state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage from the November ballot, saying it would destroy fundamental rights that cannot be legally altered by a voter initiative.

The suit was filed by organizations representing gay and lesbian couples in the case that led to the court's May 15 ruling striking down the state law that excluded them from marriage - a ruling the Nov. 4 initiative would reverse.

Like one of the laws that the court overturned, the initiative declares that "only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

In papers filed four days after the legalized same-sex weddings began around the state, advocacy groups argued that the measure would change the state's Constitution so profoundly that it would amount to a revision. Under the law, the Constitution cannot be revised by initiative alone - a two-thirds legislative approval is also needed before the measure goes to the voters.

"If enacted, (the November initiative) would eviscerate the principle of equal citizenship for gay and lesbian people and strip the courts of their authority to enforce basic constitutional guarantees," said Stephen Bomse, lawyer for the groups.

He said the measure would "destabilize our Constitution and our basic government plan ... by establishing that any group may be deprived of equal protection and fundamental rights through a simple majority vote."

The lawsuit also contends that the initiative petitions circulated to voters before the court ruling were misleading because they declared that the measure would make no change in the marriage laws and would have no fiscal impact.

The advocacy groups, led by Equality California, asked the court to declare the initiative unconstitutional and strike it from the ballot, an action the justices seldom take before an election. Backers of the measure quickly denounced the suit.

"Equality California and its allies are desperate to evade democracy," said attorney Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund. Prop. 22 was the 2000 ballot measure, approved by 61 percent of the voters, that declared same-sex marriages illegal, reaffirming a statute passed by the Legislature in 1977.

"First, they used the courts to erase the votes of nearly 5 million Californians who voted to protect marriage," Lavy said, referring to the balloting on Prop. 22. "Now they are trying to silence the people's voice forever. This is just another attempt to force a radical political agenda upon the people of California
 

Offline beemanbeme

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2587
For the sake of argument (who me??), if this stays on the ballot --no gay marriages- and is endorsed by the voters, how RICH will ALL the lawyers in Calif. be and how LONG will it be before it is ever resolved in the courts, if it ever is?  And too, what will be the status of all the folks that are running around busily getting LEGALLY married even as we speak??  How will the disposition of their commonly held property be handled?  What about insurance claims?  retirements?  Survivor benefits? 

Offline powderman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32823
  • Gender: Male
If the people are really the govt, they have already spoken, they said NOOOOOOO. POWDERMAN.  >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Mr. Charles Glenn “Charlie” Nelson, age 73, of Payneville, KY passed away Thursday, October 14, 2021 at his residence. RIP Charlie, we'll will all miss you. GB

Only half the people leave an abortion clinic alive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM
What part of ILLEGAL is so hard to understand???
I learned everything about islam I need to know on 9-11-01.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDqmy1cSqgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u9kieqGppE&feature=related
http://www.illinois.gov/gov/contactthegovernor.cfm

Offline beemanbeme

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2587
Okay Powderman, if you want to be taken seriously, you have to pay attention.  I'll type real slow.

 The courts have said it's okay for them to get married.  Even right this minute, there are same sex couples being married in California. LEGALLY. So even if this ground swell of bigotry is legal and is passed in Nov, what about the people that are LEGALLY married between now and then? 

Once these folks are married, one or both of them are eligible for insurance coverage, hospitalization, IRA contributions, retirement benefits, survive benefits and so forth on the others policies or company benefits.  How is this going to be reconciled?   

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
So will all the insurance co's find a way to profit from this ?
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline lrs

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 672
"Okay Powderman, if you want to be taken seriously, you have to pay attention.  I'll type real slow."

Is not this a personal attack?
" we are screwed "

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
It was nice of bemam to type slow so we could all read slow and not hurt our eyes !
he didn't say anything bout his looks , parents or children .
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline dukkillr

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3428
    • The Daily Limit
The issue is complicated.  They are seeking to change the California Constitution to address the court ruling that found gay marriage to be a right.  If the amendment were passed the issue would be over until (not if) they revoke the amendment. 

The previously passed legislation was not an amendment, so it could not overcome being deemed unconstitutional...

Just a guess... IF it gets on the ballot it WILL NOT pass.  Gay marriage is here to stay in California. 

Online Graybeard

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (69)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26944
  • Gender: Male
"Okay Powderman, if you want to be taken seriously, you have to pay attention.  I'll type real slow."

Is not this a personal attack?

I believe it fits more into the category of ignorance than personal attack. Powderman was quite clear and those with eyes to see and ears to hear should be able to do so and to take him very seriously.

He merely took the logical extension of the idea of "government of the people, for the people and by the people" and stated that since the people had already spoken on this matter and were clearly AGAINST gay marriage then the issue should now be a dead one and marriage of same sex individuals is not legal.

The courts are trying to legislate and that is NOT their job.


Bill aka the Graybeard
President, Graybeard Outdoor Enterprises
256-435-1125

I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life anyone who believes in Him will have everlasting life!

Offline lrs

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 672
" I believe it fits more into the category of ignorance than personal attack. "

I stand corrected.  ;D
" we are screwed "

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
dukkiller , don't you believe it is more about who gets tax breaks and insurance benifits than being married ? It would make more sense to call it by another name so there would be no confusion . But by calling it marriage much of the changes to accomidate the new union between gays is by passed with out debate or scrutiny .
Guess we will have mixed marriage , gay mirrage , open marriage and then regular old fashion marriage !
Do they still have common law marriage ? Think about it most common law decended from British Common law , which came from the Bible . The Bible condems gay mirrage . So what do ya call two gays living togather out of wedlock ?
THINK ABOUT IT ! We are undermining the foundation of the laws we live by !
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline dukkillr

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3428
    • The Daily Limit
dukkiller , don't you believe it is more about who gets tax breaks and insurance benifits than being married ? It would make more sense to call it by another name so there would be no confusion . But by calling it marriage much of the changes to accomidate the new union between gays is by passed with out debate or scrutiny .
Guess we will have mixed marriage , gay mirrage , open marriage and then regular old fashion marriage !
Do they still have common law marriage ? Think about it most common law decended from British Common law , which came from the Bible . The Bible condems gay mirrage . So what do ya call two gays living togather out of wedlock ?
THINK ABOUT IT ! We are undermining the foundation of the laws we live by !

I'm just trying to clarify the original post because it appeared to confuse a law with a constitutional amendment.  Despite claims about "legislating from the bench" is IS the courts' job to overturn unconstitutional laws.  For instance, lets say I lobby my local (completely incompetent) Kansas Congress and get them to pass a law that all left handed people need to give up all their possessions and move to Missouri.  Well obviously just because "the will of the people" passed it doesn't mean that law overturns the rights we all have.  BUT, an amendment to the constitution is not subject to the courts.  That's the reasoning behind these movements to amend state constitutions... I think there was even a brief effort to do something similar on the national stage.  Among the reasons that this issue is complicated is because the states all have to reciprocate other states' marriage laws.  So states have to deal with what to do when a gay couple married in California move to Kansas, and how to dissolve such a marriage.  The issues are complicated and will only get worse in the short term.

Some states, including Kansas, still have common law marriage.  I'm guessing that it would be a minority of states, but I'm not going to look it up.  I doubt if California does.  In today's world the only thing common law marriage does is make work for lawyers.  I'd get rid of it everywhere if I were in charge.

Now I'm not making an crazy statements like, "This is the end of the world..." or "now we've destroyed all our laws..." or whatever... It just makes the person saying it look like a crazy person.  Quite frankly, I don't much care.  I would vote for the amendment if it were here in Kansas, but it's not going to change my life, and quite frankly, there are way too many other things in life to worry about. 

I wasn't trying to pass my opinion, just clarifying where I thought there might be some misunderstanding.

Offline beemanbeme

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2587
It's not a matter of ignorance at all!! I asked a very straightforward question and got a rather silly assed "its the will of the people" answer. It may be the will of the people but it ain't the will of the judges.  So far. As has been stated elsewhere, judges sit for life so that laws don't become popularity contest. The judges have said that same sex marriages are legal; and now there appears that some sort of referendum is being set up for a vote in Nov that will change that.

I'm wasn't interested in anyone's moral position on same sex marriages. And I'm sure they're not interested in mine. We've plowed that field to a fair the well in another thread.

BUT that has nothing to do with my question.  From June to Nov is a pretty large window and my question was about the LEGAL ramifications and how they would be reconciled if this referendum is carried.

Are those people in California that are being married, still  married?  Are those people in California that are getting their teeth fixed on their "significant other's" company dental policy still gonna get their teeth fixed?  What about the people that die and leave a survivor?  Social Security benefits?  Joint filing of taxes.  Does that start now but stop in Nov.?

Pretty straightforward question(s) without any straightforward answers whether I type fast or slow.

I think a great deal of the same sex marriage issues has to do with legal rights.

Offline deltecs

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • Gender: Male
That is the crux of the matter.  Gays want legal rights to choose sexual orientation with all the legal trappings and benefits of heteosexual couples.  I personally disagree with this concept.  California's petition is to change its Constitution to limit marriage to be between a man and woman, which is not illegal, nor unconstitutional.  This is a States right issue and may have to be decided by SCOTUS at some future date.  43 States have laws either defining marriage as between a man and woman or have laws against same sex marriage.  17 of those States have Constitutional Amendments defining marriage to be between a man and a woman.  So California could amend its Constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman and effectively overturn the Court decision.  Alabama's law goes as far as to refuse to recognize all same sex marriages, where ever they were performed legally.  They still are not a married couple in Alabama. 
Greg lost his battle with cancer last week on April 2nd 2009. RIP Greg. We miss you.

Greg
deltecs
Detente: An armed citizenry versus a liberal society
Opinion(s) are expressly mine alone and do not necessarily agree with those of GB or GBO mgmt.

Offline Shooter973

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 52
Normalizing pervertion does'nt make it right!!!  Not everybody thinks that Gay Marrage is a right. It's still wrong in many ways.  :o

Offline deltecs

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • Gender: Male
Normalizing pervertion does'nt make it right!!!  Not everybody thinks that Gay Marrage is a right. It's still wrong in many ways.  :o

I'm in total agreement.  A choice is not necessarily a right.  I just related that California has enough signatures to place a Constitutional Amendment on its ballot that defines marriage as between a man and woman.  I don't see how the Court has grounds to prevent a Constitutional Amendment from being voted upon, if it has enough legal signatures to place it on the ballot. 
Greg lost his battle with cancer last week on April 2nd 2009. RIP Greg. We miss you.

Greg
deltecs
Detente: An armed citizenry versus a liberal society
Opinion(s) are expressly mine alone and do not necessarily agree with those of GB or GBO mgmt.

Offline billy_56081

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8575
  • Gender: Male
Normalizing pervertion does'nt make it right!!!  Not everybody thinks that Gay Marrage is a right. It's still wrong in many ways.  :o


Exactly!!!!!!
99% of all Lawyers give the other 1% a bad name. What I find hilarious about this is they are such an arrogant bunch, that they all think they are in the 1%.

Offline powderman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32823
  • Gender: Male
" I believe it fits more into the category of ignorance than personal attack. "

I stand corrected.  ;D

Yep. Besides, I'm used to it. It' amuses me seeing so called straight folks defending the perverts. POWDERMAN.  :D :D :D :D :D :D
Mr. Charles Glenn “Charlie” Nelson, age 73, of Payneville, KY passed away Thursday, October 14, 2021 at his residence. RIP Charlie, we'll will all miss you. GB

Only half the people leave an abortion clinic alive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM
What part of ILLEGAL is so hard to understand???
I learned everything about islam I need to know on 9-11-01.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDqmy1cSqgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u9kieqGppE&feature=related
http://www.illinois.gov/gov/contactthegovernor.cfm

Offline DalesCarpentry

  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6111
  • Gender: Male
  • I would rather be shooting!!
" I believe it fits more into the category of ignorance than personal attack. "

I stand corrected.  ;D

Yep. Besides, I'm used to it. It' amuses me seeing so called straight folks defending the perverts. POWDERMAN.  :D :D :D :D :D :D
No I think it is more like tunnel vision. I bet you tried to be the bully in the school yard also. Dale
The quality of a mans life is in direct proportion to his commitment to excellence.

A bad day at the range is better than a good day at work!!

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
dukkiller good points !I for one had not considered it in the terms you posted !
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline powderman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32823
  • Gender: Male
Normalizing pervertion does'nt make it right!!!  Not everybody thinks that Gay Marrage is a right. It's still wrong in many ways.  :o

Agreed for the most part, but it's wrong in all ways. All this does is to try and convince the public, especially the non Christian ones, that these perversions are ok, they aren't. I see that some of you have been converted, you're in for a shock someday. POWDERMAN.  :o :o :o :o :o :o
Mr. Charles Glenn “Charlie” Nelson, age 73, of Payneville, KY passed away Thursday, October 14, 2021 at his residence. RIP Charlie, we'll will all miss you. GB

Only half the people leave an abortion clinic alive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM
What part of ILLEGAL is so hard to understand???
I learned everything about islam I need to know on 9-11-01.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDqmy1cSqgo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u9kieqGppE&feature=related
http://www.illinois.gov/gov/contactthegovernor.cfm

Offline Ruskin

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 365
I don't think the government has the authority to define marriage.  Marriage was put in place by God long before any government existed.  The only thing man could do is recognize relationships that are not marriage.  The ground rules for marriage were set down by a higher power. 

Offline beemanbeme

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2587
Dukkiller makes a very good point in that it may be the will of the people but is it fair to all people.   That's where the judges come in.  And then, if there is conflict between the states, it moves into the federal courts. Way back when, a large number of states had laws on the books about separate schools and inter-racial marriages which were decided in federal courts. This is why I say this can drag on and on and on while the lawyers get richer and richer. 

It seems to me that the big conflict is a matter of terms.  When the church people say "marriage" they think of a Holy wedding performed by a preacher or priest of some sort ordained by a church.  When the state says "marriage" they are talking about a legal alliance that may be performed by a JP or a judge or whomever.  Maybe if the church segment of the argument were to start calling their ritual "Holy Matrimony" it would take away some of the heat. I am SURE that if the right to same sex marriages is sustained, there will be "crusaders" that will move to states that have laws against same sex marriages to force the issue into Federal court. So whether you're fer'it or agin'it, brace yourself. ;)

I'm still curious to know what people think is gonna happen to the the folks caught in the "time warp" between now and Nov if the referendum passes?

Offline dukkillr

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3428
    • The Daily Limit
Dukkiller makes a very good point in that it may be the will of the people but is it fair to all people.   That's where the judges come in.  And then, if there is conflict between the states, it moves into the federal courts. Way back when, a large number of states had laws on the books about separate schools and inter-racial marriages which were decided in federal courts. This is why I say this can drag on and on and on while the lawyers get richer and richer. 

It seems to me that the big conflict is a matter of terms.  When the church people say "marriage" they think of a Holy wedding performed by a preacher or priest of some sort ordained by a church.  When the state says "marriage" they are talking about a legal alliance that may be performed by a JP or a judge or whomever.  Maybe if the church segment of the argument were to start calling their ritual "Holy Matrimony" it would take away some of the heat. I am SURE that if the right to same sex marriages is sustained, there will be "crusaders" that will move to states that have laws against same sex marriages to force the issue into Federal court. So whether you're fer'it or agin'it, brace yourself. ;)

I'm still curious to know what people think is gonna happen to the the folks caught in the "time warp" between now and Nov if the referendum passes?
The referendum won't pass.  I couldn't find the actual text of the amendment so I don't know how it deals with other states or pre-existing unions.  No doubt this will be going on for a long time. 

Offline ms

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2442
Gb is right about the courts you guys need to go back to school.

Offline jimster

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2237
  • Gender: Male
I agree with the basics that have been brought up by GB and powderman about the judicial branch overstepping into legislative...not good.  We see too much of this lately.
It is not the judicial branch that make the laws, they need to butt out of such affairs.  The U.S high court has had to slap a few State courts a few times in the past for legislating from the bench, let's hope we see lot's more of that.  I'd like to see the courts stick to their business, judicial only...any laws that get passed come from where their supposed to.  Anytime something is brought before the people to vote on, should end right there. 

Offline dukkillr

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3428
    • The Daily Limit
I agree with the basics that have been brought up by GB and powderman about the judicial branch overstepping into legislative...not good.  We see too much of this lately.
It is not the judicial branch that make the laws, they need to butt out of such affairs.  The U.S high court has had to slap a few State courts a few times in the past for legislating from the bench, let's hope we see lot's more of that.  I'd like to see the courts stick to their business, judicial only...any laws that get passed come from where their supposed to.  Anytime something is brought before the people to vote on, should end right there. 
This is, quite simply, wrong.  I don't want a personal fight here, and I'm not trying to start that, but I also don't want anyone to read what you've written and believe it is supported by the Constitution of the United States, the Bill or Rights, and Supreme Court of the United States.

I posted a great example above.... but since it's fallen on deaf/ignorant ears, I'll try again.  How 'bout this:  Lets say Oregon passes a law that says, "Left handed people may not own guns."  Now, of course, your logic would say, "Great, it was voted on... and the people are never wrong..." But the reality of our country is that constitutional rights belong to ALL people, REGARDLESS OF A LAW.  The fake law I made would remove a constitutionally protected right arbitrarily and any court would rightly strike it down.  If you want to change the rights people have, it must be addressed at the CONSTITUTIONAL level.  Depending on the right and ruling it might be addressed at the state and/or federal level. 

Offline DalesCarpentry

  • Trade Count: (32)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6111
  • Gender: Male
  • I would rather be shooting!!
dukkillr you seem to know a lot about this kind of stuff. This kind of stuff was never my strong point by any means. My wife on the other hand knows a lot me about these type of things than I do. I was wondering if you had some type of degree? Thanks Dale
The quality of a mans life is in direct proportion to his commitment to excellence.

A bad day at the range is better than a good day at work!!

Offline jimster

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2237
  • Gender: Male
dukkillr, you did make a very good point...no doubt if the people tried to vote left handed people could not own guns....it's a constitutional matter.
I'm just wondering how gay marriage enters into any rights....Seems the State sets the rules on things like that, and it gets pretty complicated when the constitution gives a great amount of power to the States as well.  I'm not even sure the constitution would give any of us the right to get married, which is a legal document, and all States might not be the same there either.
Plus lots of States have rules on what you have to do to even get married, blood tests, classes, lots of things like that. 

Pretty complicated....and you gave a good example for sure on court stepping in.  It's all interesting for sure, I'd just want someone to maybe tell us if there even is a right for anyone to be married.  For all I know, it's a privilage like driving. 

Mostly what this will do is push conservative Sates to add constitutional amendments to not marry gays.  I think many Sates will fight it at the State constitutional level before it happens to them.

Good topic

Jim





Offline dukkillr

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3428
    • The Daily Limit
dukkillr you seem to know a lot about this kind of stuff. This kind of stuff was never my strong point by any means. My wife on the other hand knows a lot me about these type of things than I do. I was wondering if you had some type of degree? Thanks Dale

I am an attorney.

dukkillr, you did make a very good point...no doubt if the people tried to vote left handed people could not own guns....it's a constitutional matter.
I'm just wondering how gay marriage enters into any rights....Seems the State sets the rules on things like that, and it gets pretty complicated when the constitution gives a great amount of power to the States as well.  I'm not even sure the constitution would give any of us the right to get married, which is a legal document, and all States might not be the same there either.
Plus lots of States have rules on what you have to do to even get married, blood tests, classes, lots of things like that. 

Pretty complicated....and you gave a good example for sure on court stepping in.  It's all interesting for sure, I'd just want someone to maybe tell us if there even is a right for anyone to be married.  For all I know, it's a privilage like driving. 

Mostly what this will do is push conservative Sates to add constitutional amendments to not marry gays.  I think many Sates will fight it at the State constitutional level before it happens to them.

Good topic

Jim
I agree with your conclusion, this issue has already caused conservative states including mine to make amendments. 

As to what right you may or may not have to marry, that is a complicated issue.  Marriage is a traditionally state law area.  There is US Supreme Court case law that suggest you have an equal protection and due process right to marriage.  Or course the California SC ruled it based on the California constitution so what rights they may or may not have is going to be different.  I would suggest reading that opinion if you're really interested.

For some more research on the topic, check:
Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967) - Interracial couple can marry.  Court found that the Due Process Clause protected the freedom to marry.  A quote from that case, "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."...
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) - "We deal with the right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony of living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions." 

To be sure this is an area of law in great flux.  I wouldn't follow every change in laws, even if I could.  As I said before, my life includes lots of other things I would rather spend my time on.  This wild-eyed idea that gay marriage will cause the death of the US seems like crazy talk to me.  I do tend to believe that the SCOTUS will eventually need to take up some type of case, probably because of conflict between state rules.  Perhaps by that day we will have a more stable field of law... but I doubt it.  My guess is that 200 years from now gay marriage will be common and everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about, much like we see women voting today.