Conservatives and Republicans stand for states' rights and limiting the growth of federal government. On principle, they stand for reducing the power and reach of federal government. Marriage has historically been a legal matter handled by the states, but Republicans pushed to federalize marriage by pushing the unfairly discriminatory DOMA, a federal law. Now they want to go further; they want to mess with our Constitution, hardly a conservative desire. They want to revise our Constitution so that unfair discrimination is embedded in it. They worry there may be too many other things in our Constitution that might allow homosexuals to marry, like our Equal Protection Clause. So much for principled conservatism on this issue. The libertarian Republicans are closer to getting it right: orthodox Republicans should pay heed.

I think it's funny. The two pictured gay guys are out of the closet and kissing in public (or about to) and mute Boehner and Cantor are looking for a closet they can go into so they can freely talk and be their bigoted, homophobic selves.

The current court is slightly conservative. Once again, Roberts will be the key. The ruling on ObamaCare was a bust, but may have been a ploy to ease repeal. This issue, which has been defeated at the state level by popular vote in almost every instance, should not be rammed down the throat of the American people. Let each state decide, and those that want to marry a same sex partner can move to those states.

The juxtaposed photographs?

Priceless.

As with so many issues, the GOP should have listened to Ron Paul on "gay marriage".

The answer isn't to endorse, or not endorse, gay marriage, the answer is to get the government, at all levels, out of the marriage business. Certainly out of the business of "defining" marriage but I would say they should even get out of the business of issuing a piece of paper which makes your marriage valid in their eyes. Marriage, vis a vis the state, is fundamentally like any other contract that two people enter into. Nobody suggests that we should need a state issued license to enter into a contract, and marriage, from a civil standpoint should be no different. Likewise, nobody would suggest that gays can be prohibited from entering into a binding contract of marriage. It's this whole need for a "license" from the state which causes the problem.

Once you have a situation where you need a piece of paper to be issued by the state to make your marriage legal, it becomes pretty hard to argue that gay couples can be denied that piece of paper. All of this crap about the "sanctity" of marriage, vis a vis the state, is rubbish. ( It's interesting that all of these state officials so worried about "traditional marriage" have made it so easy for those marriages to end in divorce,in an almost pain free way, as if your returning a pair of pants that don't fit).

The so called social conservatives, as always, confuse the role of the church with the role of the state. Nobody is suggesting, to may knowledge, that the catholic church, or any other, should be forced to preside over the marriages of gay couples. Marriage, or holy matrimony in catholic parlance, is an entirely separate process from marriage in the civil sense. we shouldn't conflate the two.

At the end of the day this is a just another issue where "conservatives" have lost their way. I'm always baffled by those claiming to favor "small government" but who have no problem with the government interfering with something as basic as recognizing, in a legal way, the relationships of folks are gay. 'm not sure why anybody wastes their time even arguing about this issue.

AngelEyez: Dec. 11, 2012 - 5:53 AM EST

"Does Obama oppose the will of the people that have voted.."

Does Obama oppose the will of the people of Alabama who want to have separate but equal schools. They voted to retain those laws on their books in 2004 so obviously it is what the will of the people wanted. Shall we let the state do that?

You see, that's why we don't vote on the civil rights of citizens. Even in 2004 integration was opposed in Alabama. Who knows where else it would still be the law.

The GOP want to keep silent about their anti-gay stance, just as they have been silent on their anti-Hispanic, anti-black, anti-women, anti-voter, anti-science, anti-environment, anti-poor and anti-elderly positions.

Great photo...

Look at the happy couple...about to kiss...

Or, look at the guys with the flowers.

Cantor looks like he's about the lean over and kiss Boeher....and Boeher looks like an old man uncomfortable with public displays of affection...but to keep him happy, he's going to kiss him back

If that is true...shouldn't all those amendments against gay marriage have been word differently?

The amendments shouldn't defining marriage as between a man & women, but the amendment should remove the word "marriage" from all legal documents.

If 'marriage' is a sacred union, does that word have any business being used in laws, or legal documents, tax forms, census forms etc? It should only be used in churches?

Can you image the census asking if you are born again...or baptized...etc?

Or what if you got tax breaks or benefits under law just for being baptized? Crazy word that would be…maybe like Iran??

The GOP is losing on every social issue.

This is another example of that fact.

Virtually no one (except possibly Muslims) oppose gay sex.

When did this happen?

Because less than 10 years ago Republican conservatives were arguing that gay sex should remain illegal, and that states should be allowed to arrest gay people for having sex.

It was the law of the land that gay people could be arrested for having sex, and Republican conservatives staunchly defended these laws all the way to the Supreme Court.

There, by a 6 to 3 decision – it was decided that it is unconstitutional to burst into the private bedrooms of gay people and arrest them for making love in the privacy of their own homes.

“The petitioners [Lawrence and Garner] are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

Previously, the SC had ruled that it was perfectly legal to arrest gay people of having gay sex. But, that decision was overturned, something the SC rarely does.

"Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."

The decision went further to say this:

“This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

All this was written by a current member of the court – Justice Kennedy.

He’ll be the 5th vote to overturn the bans on gay marriage, and I think that Justice Roberts will join him.

Gay marriage bans?

It’s finished.

With conservatives opposing this expansion of human rights every step of the way.

Conservatives are so often on the wrong side of history.