Not to get in the way of your hysteria, but I’m not aware of a any uptick in the number of man/dog or man/child marriages in the wake of the Loving v. Virginia decision, in which an activist Supreme Court said state bans on blacks and whites marrying one another violated the constitution.
If suddenly white men being able to marry women of any color didn’t also mean they were allowed to marry, let’s say, ducks, I don’t know why saying they’re allowed to marry other men would have the same effect.
Not to get in the way of your hysteria, but I’m not aware of a any uptick in the number of man/dog or man/child marriages in the wake of the Loving v. Virginia decision, in which an activist Supreme Court said state bans on blacks and whites marrying one another violated the constitution.
One difference is that marriage was still between men and women, after the Loving ruling. I think what has people concerned is that further changes in marriage could come about based on this ruling. I agree it’s silly to say that because of this ruling, then somebody will marry a horse.
On the other hand, if we’re intellectually honest, we must say that limiting marriage to 2 people is a social norm that evolved, just as monogamous opposite sex marriage evolved. But as we see with polygamous compounds, some people live that way, and they too may demand legal recognition.
I think lotsa people are concerned that the essential nature of marriage changes if you allow same-sex marriage and that it opens the door to other changes.