[jde1953]

"Every man has an equal right to marry a woman. Every woman has an equal right to marry a man. No man has a right to marry another man. No woman has a right to marry another woman. That is where the equal rights analysis should end."

Of course, a few decades ago, the argument was as follows:

"Every white man has an equal right to marry a white woman. Every black man has an equal right to marry a black woman. No white man has a right to marry a black woman. No black woman has a right to marry a white man. That is where the equal rights analysis should end."

After all, marriage has had only ONE definition throughout the millenia [as I believe another poster said], and has NEVER changed, and has been viewed equally in all societies and all cultures, right? (Quick question: if marriage has never changed, are wives still the property of the husband? As a bachelor, I'm not up to date with the current legal details in that area.)

[presidio9]

After all, marriage has had only ONE definition throughout the millenia [as I believe another poster said], and has NEVER changed, and has been viewed equally in all societies and all cultures, right? (Quick question: if marriage has never changed, are wives still the property of the husband? As a bachelor, I'm not up to date with the current legal details in that area.)

Welcome to FR. Have you enjoyed your couple of days here?

Your analogy makes some sense of course, until one considers that all marriages up until now have had one thing in common. This new ruling disregards that one thing...

[kennedy]

Your attempt to equate opposition to same sex marriages with racism is just plain offensive. Hitler and Stalin imposed their beliefs on their citizens. Does that mean I can equate the Massachusetts Supreme Court with the Nazis and Communists?

Let's say I decide I want to marry my mother. Maybe I decide that I want to marry my mother and my sister. Do I have a constitutional right to do so? Why not, because most people find the idea disgusting? At least there is plenty of historical support for incestuous marriages and polygamy, unlike same sex marriages, which until a few years ago had never been recognized by any culture anywhere on the face of the earth.

In a republic such as the United States, if a majority of the citizens want to overrule thousands of years of custom and history and rewrite the concept to marriage to include same sex marriages, then they are free to do so through their duly elected representatives. It should not be imposed upon us by a few ultra liberal judges.

[Loyalist]

Nonsense.

Banning interracial marriage was an attack on the institution of marriage as much as legalizing homosexual `marriage` is.