And down go the dominoes

As more and more Americans begin to realize that sexual orientation and morality have zero connection, more and more states keep making marriage equal:

In the past week, Rhode Island and Delaware became the 10th and 11th states to approve gay marriage. But so far, only legislatures in coastal or New England states have voted affirmatively for gay marriage. Except for Iowa, which allows gay marriage due to a 2009 judicial ruling, same-sex couples can’t get married in flyover country.

Minnesota might go first, but Illinois could be close behind. The state Senate there voted in February to allow same-sex marriage, and supporters think they’re close to securing the votes needed to get it through the House and on to Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, who says he’ll sign it.

Officially, Maine was the first state to make marriage equal by way of the ballot box, but it soon became officially legal in Maryland and Washington the same night. Not long after, Rhode Island caught up with the rest of New England through the legislative process, and, to the surprise of many, did it with very strong Republican support. Now the states that value liberty the most eagerly await the next moves in the mid-west and west.

Remember this about Political Figure Antonin Scalia:

Earlier this year I made a prediction about how Political Figure Antonin Scalia will rule when he finds legal briefs on marriage equality for gay people on his desk: I don’t think he will hold to any of the ‘principles’ he has spent the past several decades selectively applying. Specifically, he has said that the ruling in Lawrence v Texas opened the door for equality in marriage:

“Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned,” Scalia wrote.

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion said the Court’s ruling against anti-sodomy laws “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”

Scalia’s retort: “Do not believe it.”

“This case ‘does not involve’ the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court,” he wrote.

First, I find it abhorrent that part of this guy’s ‘logic’ in his dissent was nothing more than a slippery slope argument he needed to make in order to defend the personal political and religious agenda he was clearly infusing into his response. Second, it is abundantly clear that if he has any integrity, he must force himself to rule in favor of marriage equality, regardless of how much it offends his personal sexual immaturity and bronze age ideas of morality.

I’m not expecting anyone to be surprised after this ruling, though.