What has hitherto an aberration in Behavior, has been taken as sanctioned socially.
They may not agree that it has never been an aberration.
The whole issue snowballed into a Legal and Constitutional Controversy because California vetoed Gay Marriage and a Couple (Gay) have approached the Court for marriage.
Gay Marriage has now become an issue of Constitutional importance involving the the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 is unconstitutional.
What beats me is the argument that the Homosexuals couples want to be treated on par with hetero sexual couples!
The very terms used to denote these groups distinctly is, because of their difference, behaviour.
It is like making a Circle equal to a Square!
What exactly are these people demanding now?
To be treated on par with hetero sexual Family and the benefits?
You want the approval of the Society?
You did not listen to the objection of the majority, normal one at that,of going Homosexual, citing all and sundry arguments to justify not-normal behaviour!
You went ahead.
Why do you seek approval from the Society , only to claim the benefits from the Society?
Or respect and regards from the people?
This is obtained by vilification or arguments but by adhering to Social Norms.
Since you chose a different path, have a set of rules and benefits among yourselves for yourselves.
Well. you can not eat the cake and have it too.
Inside the court’s ornate chambers, some justices wanted to slow things down.
“You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones or the Internet?” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked. “We do not have the ability to see the future.”
Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, whose questioning indicated that she was skeptical of the reasons proffered for why gay couples should not be allowed to marry, seemed to think that it might not be time for the court to make a bold decision.
“If the issue is letting the states experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, why is taking a case now the answer?” she asked.
A ‘difficult question’
Sotomayor’s question indicated the complicated nature of the case at hand.
Washington lawyer Charles J. Cooper is representing proponents of Proposition 8 in defending the law, since California officials have refused. He said the court should respect the decision of California voters, who faced the “agonizingly difficult question” of whether to protect traditional marriage after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay couples could wed.
Theodore B. Olson, representing two California couples who want to marry, wants Proposition 8 overturned. But he is also pushing the court to find that the Constitution demands that the fundamental right to marry be extended to same-sex couples nationwide.
United for Marriage has organizeddozens of pro-gay marriage eventsacross the nation Tuesday, many with the aid of Episcopal, United Church of Christ, Methodist, Unitarian Universalist and other congregations.
Meanwhile, anti-same sex marriage groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Family Research Council and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, have also made broad calls, each asking for prayers this week in support of keeping laws that bar same-sex marriage on the books.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage known as Proposition 8. Read the transcript or listen to complete audio of the arguments below. You can annotate the recording with comments and reactions by logging into SoundCloud.