I do recognize, as do most Americans the institution of mariage, and its definition, as being ONE man and ONE woman.
And neither you nor 'most Americans' need to alter your opinion one whit, under this ruling or under any other that I would approve. If you don't approve of same-sex marriages, don't recognize them. Just don't make it legally impossible for anyone to recognize them.
I think if two people of the same-sex want to be together, and they agree to do so, I don't plan to stop them. However don't ask us to change the definition of mariage so they call their "relationship" something that it is not.
More importantly, don't ask us to make their "union" equivilent to mariage.
Marriage is an institution that doesn't discriminate. If Mr A is hetero and Mr B is homo, neither can marry Mr C, no matter his proclivities. To claim that discriminates against Mr. B is ludicrous on it's face.
What's more, any legislation limiting the newspeak meaning of marriage to homosexuals would be discriminatory.
"And neither you nor 'most Americans' need to alter your opinion one whit, under this ruling or under any other that I would approve. If you don't approve of same-sex marriages, don't recognize them. Just don't make it legally impossible for anyone to recognize them."
If gay unions receive legal recognition, then everyone under that jurisdiction does in fact have to recognize them everytime they pay a tax into that jurisdiction.
But anyway, does that mean you support the judicial imposition of gay marriage/civil unions, or in other words, the forced societal recogntion of them by as few as 5 people acting w/o any regard for the original intent of the Constitution.