Mentioning Locke was pretty good, I wasn't expecting that based on the title, but the TC is actually dipping into some stuff that a lot of people don't even know about.
As far as the court rulings on same-sex marriage goes it seems to me that if the Constitution granted a right to same-sex marriage then courts should have ruled that way a long time ago. Seeing how for most of American history courts have not believed in such a right, then that right was not intended to be in the Constitution. Also the Supreme Court should err on the side of caution when it comes to overruling 30 something state constitutions. If there is growing support for same-sex marriage that is an issue that should be left for the democratic process to decide, not for the Supreme Court to whip up a new constitutional right Roe v. Wade style. And my guess is that John Roberts' thinking is probably similar to what I am saying.
Also anyone else find it ironic that liberals are so celebratory of the Windsor decision? From what I remember Windsor's suit was based on the idea that because of DOMA the feds did not recognize her "marriage" and thus required her to pay an estate tax on property she inherited from her partner. I thought liberals normally don't like it when people with money don't pay their "fair share" of taxes? Now I know what they would say, it's not fair that if she was married to man she wouldn't have to pay an estate tax while same-sex partners do have to pay the tax? Fair enough, but in that case if someone's same-sex partner doesn't have to pay the estate tax, is it fair for a person's children and grand-children to have to pay an estate tax on what they inherit from their children or grand-children? Could we not say that the relationship between a parent and a child is more important than that between same-sex "partners"?
Log in to comment