A baby/Child needs a mothers love/bond..

Both of you are living in denial. Or at least going on wishful thinking. Where do you get the idea that more people in this country are for gay marriage than against it? Heck, the whole reason the Supreme Court is hearing the DOMA case right now is because supporters of gay marriage know they can't win the day in most states.

They then confronted a second, much more ambitious case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, concerning whether the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. Most observers thought the court would hold the case while it worked through one on the 1996 law, and some thought it might deny review, letting stand an appeals court decision that had struck down Proposition 8.

Instead, the court granted review in the case. That was a surprise and a puzzle. Who had voted to hear it? One school of thought was that the court’s four liberals were ready to try to capture Justice Kennedy’s decisive vote to establish a right to same-sex marriage around the nation.

That theory was demolished in the courtroom as one liberal justice after another sought to find a way to avoid providing an answer to the central question in the case. The decision to hear the case, it turned out, had come from the other side.
Justice Scalia, almost certainly joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., apparently made a twofold calculation: that their odds of winning would not improve as same-sex marriage grows more popular and more commonplace, and that Justice Kennedy, who is likely to write the decision in the case concerning the 1996 law, would lock himself into rhetoric and logic that would compel him to vote for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in a later case.

It is not that the conservatives felt certain they would win. It is that their chances would not improve in the years ahead. That leaves the question of the fourth vote. The most likely answer is that it was that of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., though he did not sound at all pleased on Tuesday to have the case before him...

Ask Scalia

According to “Supreme Court Practice,” the leading manual on Supreme Court procedure, it is bad form for a justice who voted to deny a petition to thwart a decision on the merits.

“The reason strikes deep,” Justice William O. Douglas explained in 1952. “If four can grant and the opposing five dismiss, then the four cannot get a decision of the case on the merits.”

The suggestion that the writ be dismissed as improvidently granted raises a recurring problem in the administration of the business of the Court. A Justice who has voted to deny the writ of certiorari is in no position after argument to vote to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. Only those who have voted to grant the writ have that privilege. The reason strikes deep. If after the writ is granted or after argument, those who voted to deny certiorari vote to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted, the integrity of our certiorari jurisdiction is impaired. By long practice-announced to the Congress and well-known to this Bar-it takes four votes out of a Court of nine to grant a petition for certiorari. If four can grant and the opposing five dismiss, then the four cannot get a decision of the case on the merits. The integrity of the four-vote rule on certiorari would then be impaired.

If the Chief Justice is in the majority then he writes the majority opinion.
Otherwise the most senior member of the Court, who's in the majority, either writes the opinion or assigns it.

Perhaps an actual legal expert can answer your second question but my understanding is that based on the below quote is that if you already voted not to hear the case but the case is being heard you really should try to at least examine the merits and not just continue to say that the case shouldn't have been heard.

I'm against it. It has an effect on children. It's abnormal. The arguments for it, such as any 2 people in love should be able to marry can be used to support incest
too. Letting them adopt children is disgusting to me, and that is another problem which people are forgetting or ignoring.

It's not set in stone that every child should be raised by a man and a woman. Many a time one or both parents die. Moreover, there are plenty of straight couples that are really not fit to raise their own children. Just because you feel icky, doesn't mean it should be unlawful.

Jace that's bigotry at its worst. I know kids who were raised by gay couples and are straight, so before you say shit like that, think before you open your big fat mouth. You have no idea what you're talking about. So quit while you're ahead because what you're saying has no basis, fact or logic

Just because soem straight couples are unfit does not mean children should be turned over to homosexuals. It's wrong, always has been, always should be. Just because they organized politically and got media support does not make it right. They are abnormal. I don't claim Bible told me either, it's obviously abnormal and wrong. I don;t think most even want to marry, they are doing it to force acceptance of their sex life on people.

I concur. Jace, your words represent a primitive thought process, both academically and emotionally.

Science does not have an understanding or firm grip on morality (right or wrong).

Questions of morality are answered by 1) philosophy or 2) religion. What makes your philosophy better than anyone else's, logically speaking?

Though this was not directed at me, I'd like to answer this as well.

My philosophy is that in order to decide each matter, I should have an open discussion about that issue. Common sense tells me that in order for me to be happy, I should try so that everyone else be happy as well. My happiness doesn't have to come at cost of others. Now, if someone's desires and actions doesn't harm me or others, then I'm not sure how someone could possibly be against what they want. Claiming It's icky, it's condemned in the some fairy tale scripture, it's abnormal, or it's going to hurt children raised by homosexuals, which by the way have no actual foundation is not a reason that their marriage is harmful to me or to others. That's why I feel my morals in this matter are sound.

Wow, there sure is a lot of name calling going on in here. That always shows signs of a weak position.

Just because soem straight couples are unfit does not mean children should be turned over to homosexuals. It's wrong, always has been, always should be. Just because they organized politically and got media support does not make it right. They are abnormal. I don't claim Bible told me either, it's obviously abnormal and wrong. I don;t think most even want to marry, they are doing it to force acceptance of their sex life on people.

I'm beginning to realize this may be a futile endeavor. Explaining, what should be obvious, to these people is something like trying to explain the color blue to someone who's been blind since birth. They just don't get it. It's common sense but it doesn't fit the political/social paradigm they've created for themselves. Or, to be more precise, what has been created for them by the secular left in politics, media, education, etc. They've all bought in so much to the unisex lie by the left, that argues there's no real difference between men and women, that they see no importance in a child being raised by a mother and father. Or the unique natural traits each bring.

Jace that's bigotry at its worst. I know kids who were raised by gay couples and are straight, so before you say shit like that, think before you open your big fat mouth. You have no idea what you're talking about. So quit while you're ahead because what you're saying has no basis, fact or logic

Wow! Abnormal in what way? I mean did your parents share their sex life with you, and since it was straight, it was okay? Goodness gracious! It's abnormal in the same way some people are left handed. They surely won't make their children be left handed. But they are abnormal, since most people are right handed, and that's the norm, meaning that's what majority of people are. Doesn't make them any less of a parent. It's irrelevant. Parents keep their sex lives out of their children's lives. In fact, having a left handed parent might even affect children more.

No, it is not bigotry at all. You just don't have an intelligent response, so you resort to name calling and insults. You're a jerk.

A 2004 report from The American College of Pediatrics:

"Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts...
The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science."

Wow, there sure is a lot of name calling going on in here. That always shows signs of a weak position.

Answer this, oh smart ones. If Gay union is so right then how about the man who wants to take several wives, why would that be so wrong.

How about close family members bonded together if they want...

and why is it right for a single person to pay more taxes then a couple? Shouldn't everyone pay their fair share then. Why should they pay more.
Come on...let us take that ride down that slippery slope ....

It is not like being left handed. It is not like being near sighted, bow legged, or having a stutter. It's abnormal sex, and while not evil or dangerous it is sick enough to prevent adoption, and pushing selves into places like armed forces and boy scouts.