I think, rather i hope, you forgot the /s tag.

I find it interesting that many purportedly non-americans seem to think that Westboro Baptist Church has widespread support, gays and undesirables are hunted down if they stray from the Safe Zone, and children recite the pledge every ten minutes while we burn a book written by a jew.

Good to hear that Germany is finally considering legalizing gay marriage, BTW.

So, do you think our current right-wing government will ban gay marriage?

If anything, they'll push it back to the states to decide. I put zero probability of a Federal ban on marriage equality.

My friends on the left always push for universal, top down rulings on social issues. In reality, there are really good reasons historically for why groups move and congregate within the United States - they get better treatment and opportunity in different places. States rights is a safety net against political swings like we're dealing with and we should all support it not because we like what Alabama or Indiana wants, but because we want California or New York to be able to represent and manage itself.

There is absolutely no defensible reason to not allow gay marriage. Who cares if some people have a religious reason for not approving of gay marriage? If they don't approve of it, don't do it. But freedom of religion should also be freedom from religion.

Yeah, no issue with gay marriage in my view. The issue is where the decision needs to be rendered. I argue Federal rulings on X create a premise for rulings on Y and while you might really like the idea of X, it doesn't really matter to your life and it invites a negative impact from Y. Let X=gay marriage and Y=a state's self-determination of immigration law.

Immigration law is a matter of non citizens rights in the US. The federal government has the responsibility to protect citizens constitutional rights. Any law that discriminates against one person because of another persons religous beliefs is prima facie unconstitutional.

Should the states have had the right to keep laws against miscegenation because someone objected to interracial marriage? What about states right when it came to Jim Crow laws?

To buttress what @fixxer stated: i do think it should be allowed for states to have horrible rules and laws (anti-miscegenation, anti-gay, anti-white, etc). People have, and will continue, to vote with their feet. More poignantly, companies will vote with their foot print. If a majority of people in Arkansas want to establish the state as a White Majority Zone, democracy dictates that it must be so. Ditto for any other region or color.

Maybe? I wouldn't want to live in those states and I think that would be pervasive. Ultimately, economics would drive progress.

All conjecture. If only social science was a real science and we could do independent trials.

Do i think the Federal Government will ban gay marriage?

No. What would the motivation be? What would be the precedent[s] cited?

Do i think the Federal Government would not mount an active defense of gay marriage if a given state sought to outlaw it?

Maybe. It would depend on the state and precedent[s] used to justify the endeavor.

May i pose a non sequitur query? What was the Women's March on the day after the Trumpnoguration protesting? What legislation, executive actions, or campaign promises were they seeking to highlight and defeat?

My friends who went to the March still have no idea what they were _not_ protesting. Saul Alinsky would be mortified to see how unfocused activism is today.

Don't forget that California is just on loan from Mexico. ;)

And that guns make people safer.