Pro-Gay Groups: Offer Your Own Amendment

[Tigermike 3,046]

June 05, 2006

Pro-Gay Groups: Offer Your Own Amendment

By Dennis Byrne

Here's a suggestion: If pro-gay groups don't like the Marriage Protection Amendment--declaring that marriage in America shall consist solely of a union of a man and a woman--they should offer one of their own that will settle the issue once and for all.

The amendment would be as simple as the long-debated and failed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with the addition of one word and a small change to another:

"Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sexual orientation."

Then, let's see where the chips fall.

This is the best way to settle this fight, because the Sexual Orientation Protection Amendment (SOP) is exactly where the LesBiGayTransgender lobby wants to take us. Let's just stop tap dancing around same-sex marriage issue, and go to the real thing: The GayEtc. lobby wants equal rights not just in marriage, but also in e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g. SOP will let us have a real debate, while cutting through all the crap.

Of course, it'll never happen because the GayEtc. lobby won't go for it. For them, it's a sure loser. So, someone will have to do it for them.

Like the Protect Marriage Illinois campaign, which a few weeks ago filed 421,000 signatures calling for an Illinois constitutional amendment that would declare that "marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State."

That was a strategic mistake. Instead, they should have gathered signatures to have a fall referendum on the Sexual Orientation Protection Amendment. Then they could have stood back and listened while the GayEtc. Lobby tried to defend their "equal rights" demands to a resistant public. And watched while the lobby got its butt whipped at the polls.

The GayEtc. lobby knows that, so it would never gather a petition for such a constitutional amendment. Instead, it would fight the referendum tooth and nail in the courts, taking the odd position that the public can't express its opinion on the matter. It has no other choice. The lobby has no recourse, but to side-step the legislature, referenda and other expressions of the people's will, and turn to their only allies: magisterial judges whose idea of separation of powers is the beheading of the legislative and executive branches of government.

So, this is what I think that President George W. Bush should do on Monday when he holds his scheduled White House news conference in the Rose Garden. Forget his expected renewal of his support for the Marriage Protection Amendment. Instead, say: "Today I am announcing that I am throwing my full weight--not behind the marriage protection act, as everyone assumed--but behind an amendment that will guarantee gays and other sexual minorities full and equal rights. I am asking the sponsors of the Marriage Protection Amendment, when it comes to a vote this week, to submit a substitute act, called the Sexual Orientation Protection Amendment. If it wins the approval of Congress and the states, so be it. If it doesn't, then that's it. We'll move on. We've already wasted enough time on this baloney."

Bush would be declared a political genius, or a complete fool. Liberals wouldn't know whether to evacuate or go blind. It would flummox his critics and perhaps, however briefly, shut up Molly Ivins.

Best of all, it would shift the burden of rhetoric from pro-family advocates to the GayEtc. lobby. Pro-family advocates need to know that they are losing the rhetorical battle.  Amendments to the Constitution historically have been in the direction of creating more rights for more people. Freedom for slaves; equal voting rights; women's suffrage. The GayEtc. lobby has successfully used this to portray pro-family groups as troglodytes, or worse, right wing Christians. The Marriage Protection Amendment only makes it appear that pro-family groups are for restricting or rolling back certain rights.

Of course, objectively speaking, that's nonsense. You can't restrict or roll back a right that never existed. But you can create a right, and pro-family groups and conservatives ought to just step back and let gay advocates try to make a case for carving their "rights" into federal and state laws and constitutions.

This is not a fight that pro-family groups sought. They didn't suddenly say, "Let's pass a law making same sex marriage illegal." They responded they only way they could to an issue that was imposed on them, in opposition. By definition, opposition is negative.

Thus, came a brick storm of vile, nasty criticism. Pro-family groups were portrayed in negative terms, such as mean-spirited homophobes. In Indianapolis, the Jesus Metropolitan Community Church--a church, of all things--is paying for a $55,000 ad campaign that features Klansmen around a burning cross. The church senior pastor equated people who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds to those who supported slavery, opposed women's suffrage and favored laws against interracial marriage.

Massachusetts' chief justice asked if voters could take away the "freedom" for gays to marry, then what's stopping them from reinstituting slavery?

Putting those kinds of labels on opponents of gay marriage is as bad as calling someone a fagot.  Yet, the GayEtc. lobby has succeeded in this slander with barely a peep with the media. In effect, the lobby is getting away with calling three-quarters of Americans homophobes, racists and slavery sympathizers.

Marriage protection referenda haven't lost in a single state, having passed usually by 70 percent or more in 17 states. Another 18 states have enacted laws. Georgia passed its referendum by 76 percent, a number that presumably exceeds the number of Georgia homophobes and right-wing fanatics. Naturally, a court struck it down, on a technicality. Where the U.S. Supreme Court will go, even under new, conservative management, is anyone's guess.

At some point in a democracy, the will of the people should count for something. Unless you are so cynical that you believe the will of the people is so fatally flawed that Americans might vote to bring back slavery.

So, if you don't like my suggestion for a Sexual Orientation Protection Amendment, here's another: Pro-family activists will stop campaigning for the supposedly unnecessary federal and state constitutional amendments and referenda to protect traditional marriage if pro-gay groups will stop asking the courts to impose homosexual marriages on America.

Email dennis@dennisbyrne.net or post a comment at http://dennisbyrne.blogspot.com.

link

[WinCrimson 61]

Who in Congress would get the ball rolling? They like their jobs, and they want to keep them.

[quietfan 233]

Some would argue that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment already gives gays full and equal rights under the law, so there is no need for such a "sexual orientation protection amendment". It’s just a matter of getting the states and anti-gays to recognize those rights, which is why federal courts are involved. [Obviously, others have different opinions, as is their right.]

In any case, neither amendment--“marriage protection” nor “sexual orientation protection”--is likely to get the two-thirds of Congress plus three-fourths of the states necessary for ratification. That’s because the electorate is too closely divided on the issue for there to be such a “super majority” on either side. Fortunately, our forefathers had the intelligence to design a Constitution that couldn’t be changed willy-nilly by any momentarily prevailing wind of public reaction, but that would require a genuine consensus of the vast majority of Americans (or their legislators) to make such fundamental changes to our system of government. Wisely, this protects the rights of all from a dictatorship of a narrow majority.

The only reason the “marriage protection” amendment has come up again now is as a rallying point for Republicans trying to rekindle a fire under their rapidly deserting base while drawing attention away from real issues—like the deficit, the war in Iraq, rampant corruption—that polls show them trailing in.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Doesnt really matter what the Republicans did right...CNN's polls would always show them as doing a poor job.

I dont EVER EVER EVER hear about how good the economy is doing. For the last 2 years its been on freaking fire and not a PEEP from all the people who were blaming bush for the job loss.

I havent heard ANYTHING from the left about how safe this country has been since 9/11. All I hear about is how the government should let terrorists attack the US as long as everybody's cell phone records remain intact.

So when 70% of Americans vote to ban gay marriage...and the Republicans try to stand up and solidify Americans' feelings on the issue...they are 'dodging the real problems'. Typical lib party line. I mean its not like GWB, congress, and state senators wake up every day and spend 16hrs worrying about Gay Marriage. I mean they can do more than ONE thing at a time. Unlike the Democrats...who spend more time trying to sink and smear the Republicans than actually trying to do anything of substance.

Just like its been the last few years...the VAST minority of Americans feel one way about a subject...and because they are willing to whine the most...they think the rest of America doesnt matter.

[WinCrimson 61]

I see what you're saying about the economy, my crimson brutha. But what does the President really have to do w/ the economy? People love to blame Bush, praise Clinton, bash Clinton, and laud Bush when I really think either one of them have any true effect on the economy. Just my $.02.

Btw, a marriage amendment is on the ballot tommorow in the AL primary. I figured I'd at least post 1 sentence on the topic. I tend to stray sometimes.

[CCTAU 3,336]

I see what you're saying about the economy, my crimson brutha. But what does the President really have to do w/ the economy? People love to blame Bush, praise Clinton, bash Clinton, and laud Bush when I really think either one of them have any true effect on the economy. Just my $.02.

Btw, a marriage amendment is on the ballot tommorow in the AL primary. I figured I'd at least post 1 sentence on the topic. I tend to stray sometimes.

238723[/snapback]

This president has set forth many things that kept the economy going. Tax cuts being the biggest. It didn't put a lot of money back into our pockets, but it did boost consumer confidence. I hate the growth of the current government, but I do see that if the government had not been enlarged, the money spent to do it would not have been there to boost the economy. After 9-11, he put into place a plan to keep us from entering a huge recession. It has worked. I do not give congress credit for anything. They seemed to be pissing original ideas out the window as fast as they can. The republicans are just trying to hang on to control and the dems are just trying to get rid of Bush. From a congressional standpoint this has been a dark age.

And the gay issue is not just a political issue. There are huge conservative groups that see this as an important issue. For us, moral decay is worse than war or depression.

[TexasTiger 12,974]

Bushco gets all fired up about gays every other year. Notice how they don't bring these things up during odd-numbered years. Time to fire up the base! Even though the ammendment is unnecessary and going no where. Bush and his base-- Dumb and Dumber. You guys are falling for it just as Karl planned. :robot: :robot: :robot:

[Tigermike 3,046]

June 06, 2006

Liberal Reactions to the Marriage Amendment Are Not Deep

By Dennis Prager

Here are the dominant liberal reactions to President Bush and the Republicans' call for a vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman:

1. Virtually every news report about President George W. Bush's support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman describes it as "pandering" to the "far Right," the "radical Right" or, less pejoratively, "social conservatives" of the Republican Party.

2. Democrats regularly describe the amendment as enshrining "discrimination in the Constitution." In the words of Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., "A vote for the amendment is a vote for bigotry -- pure and simple."

3. Republicans are attacked for "diverting" attention from far more important issues, such as, according to every Democratic leader, Iraq and gas prices.

Regarding the news reporting: This is another example of how the news media present news. First, Democrats are rarely, if ever, described as "pandering" to the Left, let alone "radical Left." Why not? For one thing, the news media do not believe there is a "radical Left," only a "radical Right." Second, liberalism regards positions held by Democrats to be sincere and noble, therefore, Democratic positions can never pander to anyone.

This is part of the larger liberal view of Republicans and conservatives: They are not merely wrong; they are either phonies or bad. It is inconceivable to most liberals that a Republican politician can sincerely oppose redefining the most important social structure of society. And if that Republican's opposition to redefining marriage is deemed sincere, it is inconceivable to most liberals that the person is anything but a bigot.

That most liberals cannot understand conservatives' views about marriage as anything but bigotry and/or pandering is part of a narcissism that characterizes much of the Left. The very definition of narcissism is an inability to see the world through the eyes of another. Whatever conservatives' flaws, far more conservatives understand liberals' views on same-sex marriage. Most opponents of same-sex marriage appreciate that liberals feel bad about gays' inability to marry a person of the same sex. In fact, as a proponent of a marriage amendment, I not only understand the liberal desire to enable people to marry someone of the same sex, I feel genuine compassion for gays on this matter.

But such empathy for ideological foes is all but absent from the narcissistic world of the Left. To virtually every liberal writer and spokesman, only liberals mean well, only they are sincere, only they are compassionate, and only they are intellectual, rational and tolerant.

Liberals' use of the word "radical" to describe opponents of same-sex marriage illustrates this self-aggrandizing mindset. To describe as "radical" those who wish to preserve the man-woman-based definition of marriage known to every civilization is to stand the word on its head. It is beyond intellectually dishonest -- it is mendacity -- to describe those who favor preserving the definition of marriage as "radical" rather than to so describe those who wish to change the gender-based definition of marriage for the first time in history. Even if you support same-sex marriage, you should at least have the honesty to admit that it is you who favors something radical.

Some of those who want a constitutional amendment to define marriage as man-woman are indeed bigoted against gays, regarding them as something less than fully human. But most people who want to maintain marriage as male-female consider homosexuals to be just as much created in the image of God as anyone else. But though it is painful for us to see a perfectly decent homosexual unable to marry a person of the same sex, we are nevertheless more preoccupied with:

(1) Giving every child the opportunity to at least begin life with a mother and father; (2) Honoring the will of the great majority of Americans, secular and religious, liberal and conservative, to preserve the man-woman marital ideal, and not allow a judge to single-handedly destroy that ideal; (3) Preserving the ability of teachers and clergy to tell the story of marriage to young children in terms of a man and woman and not confuse the vast majority of kids who are forming their vision of marriage and sexuality.

These preoccupations are neither bigoted nor radical. They are, in our view, civilization-saving.

As for the liberals' view that gas prices are more important than society's definition of marriage, it is so self-incriminating that no response is needed.

link

[DKW 86 7,437]

It just hit me reading that that the real 'pushers' for Gay marriage arent gay. Can anyone name a real, known gay, someone other than Rosie O'Donnell maybe, that even cares about this? It may be just Liberals doing what they do best and shoving something down other peoples' throats that really they could not care less about.

Do gays really want gay marriage? Of the ones I am associated with, I could not imagine any but one pair actually getting married. The random non-committed partner swapping is a big draw for the ones I have dealt with. I could not imagine one of them 'Married.'

[TexasTiger 12,974]

It just hit me reading that that the real 'pushers' for Gay marriage arent gay. Can anyone name a real, known gay, someone other than Rosie O'Donnell maybe, that even cares about this? It may be just Liberals doing what they do best and shoving something down other peoples' throats that really they could not care less about.

Do gays really want gay marriage? Of the ones I am associated with, I could not imagine any but pair actually getting married. The random non-committed partner swapping is a big draw for the ones I have dealt with. I could not imagine one of them 'Married.'

238775[/snapback]

Please list the "real pushers" for gay marriage. I'm not sure who they are.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Texas,

Since 70% of America thinks a marraige should be between a man and a woman...how is this firing up the republican base? I mean...there's GOT to be some dems in there too...

[quietfan 233]

So when 70% of Americans vote to ban gay marriage...

Just like its been the last few years...the VAST minority of Americans feel one way about a subject...

238703[/snapback]

Texas,

Since 70% of America thinks a marriage should be between a man and a woman...

238798[/snapback]

Just curious, where do you keep coming up with this "70% of Americans" figure? I've not seen it anywhere.

[quietfan 233]

Just had another thought:

If marriage is constitutionally defined as "one man + one woman", who decides what is a man/woman? I.e., how is a trangendered person and/or hermaphrodite classified?

[Tigermike 3,046]

Just had another thought:

If marriage is constitutionally defined as "one man + one woman", who decides what is a man/woman?  I.e., how is a trangendered person and/or hermaphrodite classified?

238868[/snapback]

Strange?

[DKW 86 7,437]

It just hit me reading that that the real 'pushers' for Gay marriage arent gay. Can anyone name a real, known gay, someone other than Rosie O'Donnell maybe, that even cares about this? It may be just Liberals doing what they do best and shoving something down other peoples' throats that really they could not care less about.

Do gays really want gay marriage? Of the ones I am associated with, I could not imagine any but pair actually getting married. The random non-committed partner swapping is a big draw for the ones I have dealt with. I could not imagine one of them 'Married.'

238775[/snapback]

Please list the "real pushers" for gay marriage. I'm not sure who they are.

238793[/snapback]

Human Rights Campaign

Christian Science Monitor

Winds Of Change

Corretta Scott King

NOW

Feingold

Mass. Dem Party

"The Dem Party as soon as the polls tell them its okay."

Google it yourself

[TexasTiger 12,974]

It just hit me reading that that the real 'pushers' for Gay marriage arent gay. Can anyone name a real, known gay, someone other than Rosie O'Donnell maybe, that even cares about this? It may be just Liberals doing what they do best and shoving something down other peoples' throats that really they could not care less about.

Do gays really want gay marriage? Of the ones I am associated with, I could not imagine any but pair actually getting married. The random non-committed partner swapping is a big draw for the ones I have dealt with. I could not imagine one of them 'Married.'

238775[/snapback]

Please list the "real pushers" for gay marriage. I'm not sure who they are.

238793[/snapback]

Human Rights Campaign

Christian Science Monitor

Winds Of Change

Corretta Scott King

NOW

Feingold

Mass. Dem Party

"The Dem Party as soon as the polls tell them its okay."

Google it yourself

238926[/snapback]

It's not clear what you mean by the "real pushers" of this issue. As stated on this board, there is no move to amend the Constitution to require gay marriage. There is little, if any, meaningful statorty "push" to authorize gay marriage. Most rulings that Bush and others are citing are court decisions. To have a court decision you need someone filing a case, and to file a case you need standing. You need to be gay and want to be married to be harmed by any law that doesn't allow it before you can challenge the law, so the "real pushers" on these cases are, by definition, gay people who want to be married. Remember San Fransisco allowing gays to marry a couple of years ago? Gay people lined up for weeks getting married. The MA court ruled after it was challenged by gay people wanting to be married. The fact that these aren't household names should not be surprising.

[TexasTiger 12,974]

Texas,

Since 70% of America thinks a marraige should be between a man and a woman...how is this firing up the republican base? I mean...there's GOT to be some dems in there too...

238798[/snapback]

You never answered quiet fan regarding where you pulled the 70% from. I guess that gives us some clue.

You can find polls that say a number of things, but I haven't seen any that say 70% of Americans favor a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Some show a small percentage favoring, some show a minority favoring it. Opposing gay marriage doesnt't mean you think the Constitution should be amended.

[DKW 86 7,437]

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll...01/60602005/100

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/120537.htm

GLAD in on it too.

Politicians are joining/initiating lawsuits. Standing really doesnt mean anything anymore in thesecases. That works for and against in this situation.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/ne...tml?record=1074

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (Lambda Legal), the nation’s oldest and largest legal organization seeking full equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people and people with HIV or AIDS, has agreed to represent the New Jersey couples. Previously in New Jersey, Lambda Legal represented James Dale in his lawsuit against the Boy Scouts. The New Jersey Supreme Court sided with Dale, but was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/26/State/Sa...riage_law.shtml

Full Faith and Credit will never work according to this. FF&C is about Judicial Decisions only, not about Legislation. Even frioendly attorneys see FF&C failiing ultimately.

Tex, Why do Liberals always try and ram crap down our throats with legal challenges? Why cant the Left use Legislation on their agendas? Why do they feel they have the right to circumvent having to convince the electorate that their ideas are right? Is it because you think the electorate are too stupid? Is it because you just think it is the right of the Left to rule with total disregard for the legislative process? Isnt that totalitarianism and the most dispicable of all governing ideas?

[TexasTiger 12,974]

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll...01/60602005/100

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/120537.htm

GLAD in on it too.

Politicians are joining/initiating lawsuits. Standing really doesnt mean anything anymore in thesecases. That works for and against in this situation.

239005[/snapback]

Standing means everything. Without it, the case gets thrown out and there is no lawsuit to join.

[WinCrimson 61]

Texas,

Since 70% of America thinks a marraige should be between a man and a woman...how is this firing up the republican base? I mean...there's GOT to be some dems in there too...

238798[/snapback]

You never answered quiet fan regarding where you pulled the 70% from. I guess that gives us some clue.

You can find polls that say a number of things, but I haven't seen any that say 70% of Americans favor a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Some show a small percentage favoring, some show a minority favoring it. Opposing gay marriage doesnt't mean you think the Constitution should be amended.

238993[/snapback]

Yeah, Gallup did a poll that said 50% ban- 47% no ban. Neck in neck.....

[Tigermike 3,046]

I heard a Senator this afternoon on the news using the 70% figure. I did not catch the entire bit, but it seemed he was saying that in the States that had voted on the issue, 70% against, at the state level. It was hard to hear, I was at my daughters and there was plenty of talking.

[TexasTiger 12,974]

I heard a Senator this afternoon on the news using the 70% figure.  I did not catch the entire bit, but it seemed he was saying that in the States that had voted on the issue, 70% against, at the state level.  It was hard to hear, I was at my daughters and there was plenty of talking.

239178[/snapback]

Most states already have amendments or laws against it. Perhaps most of the electorate has already voted on this issue at the local level.

[TitanTiger 20,506]

The 70% figure is from Gallup polls, but it's not about an amendment. Around 70% of Americans oppose the idea of "gay marriage." Far less than that want to amend the Constitution to address the matter. Most think it should be a state decision. That coincides with the landslide victories (typically 65-75% in favor) that gay marriage bans have won in referendums at the state level.

Frankly, this is why homosexual advocacy groups aren't pushing for an amendment to this end. And it's not simply because they believe that it's a right they already have in the Constitution. They saw the disaster of the ERA movement in the 70s. They don't want to take the risk of a frontal assault that will decimate their cause if they lose. What homosexual advocates are hoping is that at least one state will allow gay marriage and stick with it. Then, gay couples who get married in that state will return or move to states that have bans on it and then they will go to court to get the bans thrown out based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

Like it or not, this is what the supporters of a Constitutional amendment can see coming and why they are pursuing it in this manner.

[TexasTiger 12,974]

The 70% figure is from Gallup polls, but it's not about an amendment.  Around 70% of Americans oppose the idea of "gay marriage."  Far less than that want to amend the Constitution to address the matter.  Most think it should be a state decision.  That coincides with the landslide victories (typically 65-75% in favor) that gay marriage bans have won in referendums at the state level.

Frankly, this is why homosexual advocacy groups aren't pushing for an amendment to this end.  And it's not simply because they believe that it's a right they already have in the Constitution.  They saw the disaster of the ERA movement in the 70s.  They don't want to take the risk of a frontal assault that will decimate their cause if they lose.  What homosexual advocates are hoping is that at least one state will allow gay marriage and stick with it.  Then, gay couples who get married in that state will return or move to states that have bans on it and then they will go to court to get the bans thrown out based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

Like it or not, this is what the supporters of a Constitutional amendment can see coming and why they are pursuing it in this manner.

239211[/snapback]

If that happens and is upheld by the Supreme Court, then this amendment will pick up steam, unless it is years from now since most younger people seem less concerned about this issue.

Right now, though, the motivation of most of the politicians involved is politics, even though many supporters are true believers.

[DKW 86 7,437]

This thing in Alabama just went 81-19% For the Banning Amendment. Tex, 70% could actually be a LOW figure in some instances.

Titan hit it out of the Park. I dont see the ususal suspects pushing this one, at least not like you would think. The FF&C Clause actually works against them because it only works for Judicial Actions, not public Policy. This seems to be the real case with the Lawsuits. Create a hundred lawsuits and hope like heck that some screaming whacko Lib judge tries to Legislate from the bench. I guess when you know that 70%+ of the public openly OPPOSE your ideas that is the only way you can shove it down their throats.

When the Libs finaly learn to quit telling the American People how stupid they are, maybe then they will begin to start winning elections again. Like that will EVER happen...

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/26/State/Sa...riage_law.shtml

The lawsuit bases some of its arguments on the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, which dates to the days when a young nation was reconciling the laws of the colonies. The clause says states should honor the public acts of other states.

Because Massachusetts legally sanctions same-sex marriages, "all the other states should be constitutionally required to uphold the validity of the marriage," the lawsuit states.

It's not that simple, legal experts say.

Historically, the full faith and credit clause has applied to judicial decisions, not legislation, said Koppelman, the Northwestern law professor. A Florida resident, say, loses a lawsuit and has to pay $1-million. Even if that person flees Florida, the full faith and credit clause makes that $1-million judgment enforceable anywhere in the country.

The federal courts have also made it clear that states do not have to acquiesce to everything another state might do. States can follow their own laws when it comes to public policy.

States do generally honor the marriage laws of other states. Florida, for instance, sets a minimum marriage age of 16, and then only with a parent's consent. But a 14-year-old Florida boy could travel to Massachusetts, which allows 14-year-olds to marry, and get hitched. Florida would likely recognize that marriage.

But think of that as a courtesy, legal experts say, not something the U.S. Constitution compels the states to do.

"A state need not recognize a marriage that violates its own public policy," said Cass Sunstein, a law and political science professor at the University of Chicago. "There has long been a public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause."

The lawsuit also claims that the federal and state defense of marriage acts violate Schoenwether and Wilson's constitutional rights to equal protection under the law and the implicit right to privacy.

Sunstein acknowledges federal courts could say that just as discrimination on the basis of race is unacceptable, so is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

"It's not unimaginable sometime in the future," he said. "However, it would be very surprising if federal judges declare this to be the law of the land any time soon."

The federal judiciary is wary of radically renovating standing laws, especially ones with broad public policy implications, he said. The judicial decisions concerning gay marriage have come from a small number of state judges interpreting state laws, not federal laws.

Koppelman agreed federal judges don't ordinarily get out in front of public opinion. Most polls show that about two of three Americans oppose same-sex marriages. Many more states will have to follow Massachusetts' lead, Koppelman said, before the federal courts address the issue head on.

"There would have to be a big change in American culture," he said.

Sunstein uses the evolution of interracial marriage laws as an example. The Supreme Court banned laws against interracial marriage in 1967. But by that time only a group of Southern states still enforced laws against interracial marriage.