I expect to see more and more rulings like this one:
A U.S. appeals court in New York on Thursday ruled that a U.S. law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is now the second federal appeals court to reject part of the Defense of Marriage Act. It upheld a lower court ruling that had found a central part of the law unconstitutional.
Appeals in several cases are currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, which could choose to take up the issue in its current term.
Two members of a three-judge panel ruled in favor of Edith Windsor, an 83-year-old woman who argued that the law discriminates against gay couples in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
They found that gays and lesbians are entitled to heightened protection from the courts, based on the history of discrimination the group has suffered.
“Homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public,” Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote for the majority.
Here are two predictions I think I can fairly make from this. First is a repeat of what I’ve said about Political Figure Antonin Scalia: This ‘justice’ says he cares about stare decisis, the principle that past case precedence is an immensely important factor in deciding current cases. In Lawrence v Texas, it was established that states cannot make sodomy illegal, and Scalia said this sets the precedence that gay marriage cannot be outlawed. Thus, if this joke of a ‘justice’ actually believes in his so-called principles, he will vote against the idea that states can ban marriage by gay people. I predict he will not.
Second, Christians will claim that their religion always supported equal rights and protections under the law when enough time has passed. We may have to wait a couple of generations, but we should start hearing claims from mainstream Bible-thumpers that Christianity has not only always been in support of equal rights, but that it was the catalyst for the social and court movements we’re seeing today. That will be a blatant lie, but it is exactly what we have seen with slavery, anti-miscegenation laws, segregation, the Enlightenment, our secular forefathers, and especially science. I see no reason why these revisionist patterns will end.