A supporter of same-sex marriage wears a rainbow flag in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
A supporter of same-sex marriage wears a rainbow flag in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday (Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg)

It’s all over but the shouting, says Dana Milbank regarding the Supreme Court’s deliberations over gay marriage this week. The protesters outside, the legal teams, the justices, and public polling all indicate that same-sex marriage in America is on its way to full social and legal acceptance, Milbank says: Even if the court upholds DOMA and Proposition 8, momentum is irreversible now.

But there will be some shouting. Those still opposed to marriage equality still protest outside the Supreme Court, and still show up in comments section to make their cases. If the battle is already over, as Milbank predicts, who is still fighting?

Well, there are some. They are all over the comments section, and they think gay people are weird and just a bit distasteful. PostScript doesn’t usually do this, but she is cherrypicking only them today, so you can take a chilly bath in what is still a reality to some. Milbank argues that their side has already lost, but they’re still arguing.

There are, in the comments, constitutional arguments. For example, that the Federal government can’t intervene in state marriage decisions at all.
MrLagg

All federal decisions on marriage need to be invalidated. That is the correct decision.

But other anti-gay-marriage commenters’ arguments are predicated on the Supreme Court having much more power than people generally think. These commenters seem chiefly concerned that gay people and gay relationships and gay families exist, in spite of the fact that commenters think they should not. Apparently, the thinking goes, the Supreme Court can rule that gay people are bad and wrong and have to stop it.

SandyStorm

Homosexuality is not immutable. It’s an ever changing sexual disaster.

DefinitelyCommonSense

And what about the children? Just about 20 years ago all psychologists and psychiatrists would die telling you that homosexuality was a mental disease. Now it is not. I was told when I was divorced 10 years ago that my daughter would be fine as long as I have a male figure in the immediate family that would act as the father figure (uncle, grandfather). Now according to the psychologists all these new scientifically created and/or conceived children are fine and two mothers and no father is fine and two fathers and no mother is fine and everything is fine as long as there is love.

Well, all right, as far as what people believe. But what does any of that have to do with upholding or overturning DOMA? How will the state regulate appropriate male figures in the lives of all children, exactly? What are the legal ramifications of being or having sexual disaster? Even if we take commenters’ opinions on how things should be as given, how will the Supreme Court make that happen? Especially if states already have gay marriage laws in place?

We don’t get that explanation, in the comments. We get reasons why homosexuality is just not right, why electricity is heterosexual (see below), that a parent doesn’t want to have to explain the world as it is to a child. These statements are much easier than thinking about why exactly the state should have a right to stop a partner of 18 years from seeing her beloved and their children before she dies. Even when the partner has power of attorney.

brad_triple9

Nobody is prejudiced against anybody. But homosexuals living together is not “marriage.” You can call a tail a leg, but that does not make it a leg.

SandyStorm

What harm? Normal people have now become the radicals–there’s your harm. What is our Constitution based on? On what grounds were our laws placed? They were based on self-evident truths about the way the world and the universe work. Positive and negative forces, energies etc.
It’s the way electricity works, magnetic poles etc. A decision like this says that nothing our Constitution is based on matters-what matters is what people want at any given time whether it makes sense or not.

DebChatterjee

Accepting your bizarre and self-defined marriage as a natural norm insults my intelligence and way of living and complicates other situations which I would not have to deal with. Like explaining the embarrassing fact to my kids how two men/women can naturally have children. That opens up some weird and bizarre options for my child which as a parent I do not want him/her to follow. I expect my children to retain some traditions that I did impart to them. But, gays and weirdos are screwing things up royally under the pretext of Obama’s all-embracing social justice system.
BECAUSE IT IS UNNATURAL.

MrLagg

[Homosexuals are] a small crowd of special interests. There is only the appearance of widespread interest. That black box with the comment count tells the real tale.

MrLagg is referring to to the number of comments Milbank’s article received. As of this writing, it’s got the most comments of anything on the page; many of them, as you can see in PostScript, are the same few people commenting over and over. Sorry, MrLagg, but you seem to be in the small crowd.