I'll wait for the actual ruling

Yes, in April I set the record of the fewest posts in a month for this blog. I should have more time in May. My final exams are over. The grades for one class have been computed, but not posted. The exams for the other class have been graded, though course grades have yet to be determined. That's a project for tomorrow. Grades are due Tuesday. Then, at a much more relaxed pace I read through the new textbook I'll be using in the fall.

Alas, the family situation that kept me busy this past month will continue.

In this month of minimal posts spring has come to my corner of Michigan. The forsythia are in bloom (though my bushes aren't as lush as previous years), as is the star magnolia and the azalea. The lawn crew has even visited once.

Marriage equality advocates had their big day before the Supremes this past Tuesday. The attitudes expressed and questions asked by the various justices were as expected. There are four reliable votes for marriage equality. There are three reliable and four probable votes against equality (see comment below about Roberts). As expected, that leaves Justice Kennedy as the swing vote and during oral arguments what he said could be taken as support for both sides.

If you want prognostications there are any number of writers on both sides of the issue happy to oblige. On the pro-equality side there is a good summary by Lyle Denniston of Scotusblog. He says Kennedy is hesitant, but leaning in our favor. Then there is a four part series by Ari Ezra Waldman of Towleroad: part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4. As for a summary from the Fundie point of view, well, I'm sure you know how to use Google. What might be better is to go straight for the photos. Andy Towle of Towleroad collected 50 of them.

Waldman separately discusses one idea brought up from the proceedings. Chief Justice Roberts commented that the case could be interpreted as sexual discrimination (Tom can't marry Joe because Tom is male). That is something the Supremes know how to handle. But Waldman says this is a bad idea and is confident the progressive justices won't buy it to gain Roberts' vote. We need a ruling by the Supremes that establish a precedent of sexual orientation discrimination that can be applied to such things as getting fired from a job for being gay.

Read all the opinions you want. We'll get the actual ruling in only eight weeks. I'll wait for that.