Arguments indicate SCOTUS is prepared to ignore the law and redefine marriage according to its own preferences

The members of Supreme Court heard arguments and debated gay "marriage" among themselves yesterday. All that remains is for the decision to be rendered.

Chief Justice Roberts said that he had been unable to find a single legal definition of marriage written before a dozen years ago that did not define it as between a man and a woman. Chief Justice Roberts said he had looked up definitions of marriage and had been unable to find one such definition written before a dozen years ago that did not define it as between a man and a woman. “If you succeed," he told the pro-redefinition justices, "that definition will not be operable. You are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change the institution.” The Chief Justice also warned against curtailing an ongoing debate in a culture still of two minds about the matter.

Justice Anthony Kennedy- a moderate liberal often misidentified by liberal observers of the Court as a conservative of some kind- thinks that maybe that's what needs to be done. At least he's honest.

Kennedy recognized that the definition cited by the Chief Justice has been operative for thousands of years. “It’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, we know better," Kennedy said. Yet for the most part his arguments seemed to indicate that he's prepared to do exactly that- even while recognizing that that is exactly what he is doing.

The Supreme Court once again seems on the cusp of ignoring absolutely all legal precedent and ruling, not on the basis of the law, but on the basis of what a majority thinks the law ought to be. And that is contrary to the Constitution, and to the rule of law itself. The Founders did not create the Court to be a standing, unelected constitutional convention.

If- as now appears likely- the Court rules 5-4 to outlaw the restriction of marriage to one man and one woman, our descent from democracy into kritarchy will be complete. We will join Canada as a former democracy now ruled by judges.

HT: Drudge