[TraditionalistMommy]

Until interracial marriage was legalized, marriage was not defined as “one man and one woman” of different races. It was illegal for a black man to marry a white woman. Opponents of interracial marriage often said that’s how it had “always been.” The definition of marriage was changed when the law was changed. It took quite a long time for many people to accept that. Some still haven’t.

Interracial marriage was legalized in just the same way you describe for gay marriage. Though the public disapproved (90% against interracial marriage in 1948, when it was legalized by California), judges determined it was, in fact, illegal to deny interracial couples the right to marry. Very much like the determination today regarding gay couples.

Do you still not see the similarities?

If you’re not saying gay couples would cost you more money, what difference does it make if you think single parents cost you more money? That connection is definitely not clear.

[jwalsh07]

Look you're wasting my time and yours. You're a liberal in traditional Mommy clothing. That's OK but it doesn't help your argument. Marriage has never been found to be the union of two persons of the same sex until judicial activists decided to do so. Fourteenth Amendment equal protection law extended that right to any couple. Violating that right does not equal creating new rights. And there is no equal protection problem here because any PERSON can marry any other PERSON of the opposite sex, ergo nobody is discriminated against.

You are a supporter of judicial activism. Most liberals prefer an oligarchy with promises of cradle to grave government largesse and special rights for special people created by small men and women in black robes. It's always been that way and I don't expect it to change any time soon.

PS: Take a math refresher course.

Adios.