If they address the larger question of a right to ssm, here's another consequence of a ruling upholding Prop 8: decreased likelihood of imposing ssm on states through the courts.

But even if my side loses both cases that's not the end of the battle by a long shot, although many on your side seem to think so. Public opinion is changing, and in one direction only. You can point to all your past victories but we're at the tipping point, as the 2012 elections showed. Maybe it's time to start working on your own marriages, not opposing other people's.

I take it you are now aware of how unlikely your victory in the SCOTUS is?

Kind of makes you look even worst considering how exuberant you were after corrupt jurists ruled in your favor at the appellate level; how gleeful you were at the site of your oppositions betrayal by the hands of your embedded tyrants sitting in black robes entrusted to them by the people they betrayed; people they swore to protect.

Disgusting is to kind a descriptive for you and your ilk.

No more hackneyed slogans about how we "don't get to vote on rights." Such a decision from SCOTUS would annihilate the claim that this battle is akin to racial prohibitions on marriage, and would rob SSMers of their fondness for the Prop 8 trial/ruling.

Some Americans oppose ssm personally, but feel that in a legal sense they have no right to oppose someone else gaining their "civil rights." But if the SCOTUS rules yet again that ssm is not a right, this may liberate those Americans who feel compelled to support ssm.

With the invented constitutional authority removed from this debate, the argument of SSMers essentially becomes “redefine marriage because we want you to.”

But none of that really matters, since the issue of marriage has nothing to do with the issue of sexuality or sexual identity. Two straight men or two straight women can't marry either. So we're discussing two separate issues.

So the fact that you're even bringing it up is a red herring.

I think they do underestimate. But that's just me.

And the first comment commits the guilt by association fallacy. Liberals are fighting an emotional, not a logical, battle against us.

Virtue is a vice to these heathen.

They said the same thing when the unions ran their rally to counter glenn beck. turned out Glenn Beck got more people than originally estimated at his Restoring Honor rally.

I believe the support for Traditional Marraige will be very surprising.

The left ALWAYS underestimates their opponents. : )

Strange, none of that happened.

An old woman in a motorized wheelchair in a retirement home told me that she was very proud that her state legalized marriage for her grandson.

A drug dealer, a child molester, a murderer, and even a prisoner on death row can get a civil marriage, even though (I hope) they can't get a religious marriage in your church. You can still prohibit anyone you like from a religious rite, but you cannot deny citizens equal access to public institutions.

1 Corinthians 5:12

You then say that something that has an actual impact on my life, and the lives of many other innocent people (quite a lot of them children) as a game.

So you've lied (which proves you can't actually support your position) and you're evil.
Not bad for less than a sentence.