Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

At the time?

I'm atheist/agnostic now but at that time I was still somewhat religious. I wasn't a regular churchgoer but I still believed, or more accurately, I had believed for what had been more than 2/3 of my life at that point that my kneejerk reaction was to be against it. I did support civil unions, though.

Going back further than that, although I do have a (now deceased) gay cousin, I wasn't particularly close to him for reasons entirely unrelated to his sexual preference. (he was closer to my mom's age than mine, for starters.) We got along OK but nothing too close. Besides him, I wasn't really raised in a tolerant environment. I mean, it wasn't raging homophobia but it certainly was more than just "frowned upon," if that makes sense.

So, I was in my mid-to-late 20s before my ideals of the past started clearing out and I started seeing the world through my own eyes. I was wavering in my support but then the polygamy argument I referenced started getting bandied around, along with "what's next? Pedophiles being allowed to marry kids?" and it's cousin, "can I marry my dog, then?" and I felt they were so stupid that I found myself supporting it.

It didn't hurt that I had yet and have still yet to have heard an argument against it that wasn't rooted in religion

 

No. One man, one woman still applied. Nothing changed about marriage with interracial marriage.

 

But not all monogamous heterosexual marriages were banned. If all marriages were banned, then there might be a point.

 

Politico proves that in a country of 330 million and if you pay enough, you'll find someone willing write to any opinion that suits their trolling needs.

It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy - Fredrik deBoer - POLITICO Magazine

 

Nothing different as multi-partner. Each of them involve one person marrying one other person. Multi-partner is different than marrying one other person.

 

Other than two people of different skin color marrying.

 

Eh, I'm pissed about Obamacare much more than this. As a conservative/Libertarian, I'm all right with the decision. I approach it from a political perspective. More and more people are supporting same-sex marriage at younger ages... even Republicans.

If the GOP wants to ever occupy the White House again, something's going to have to give. Just my two cents.

Also thought it was funny the deciding vote essentially was Anthony Kennedy... a conservative justice appointed by Reagan. Who'd figure?

 

There never was color in the definition of marriage. It's not that hard to understand.

 

Citizens eligible to vote were defined as men only. By your logic, we shouldn't have changed that to allow women to vote.

 

Your need to change the subject from marriage to voting is duly noted.

 

Your decision to run away from an argument you know you can't win is duly noted.

Also, I didn't change the subject. The subject is equal rights for citizens of the United States.

My point is valid and you know it. Both cases involve denying rights to U.S. citizens. So which is it, Tony? Should we be able to make necessary changes or not? If so, your argument against gay marriage falls apart. If so, then you are saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Anything else is you dodging an argument you can't win.

 

Then why was interracial marriage banned?

Plus, there's never been gender in the traditional definition of marriage either.