MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[Anima]

Why the game? Below is a link to the opinion. Here is the last paragraph of the majority opinion.

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes  of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14p...6_3204.pdf

The court found that the laws in question violated the 14th amendment. You can disagree with it and argue the merits of it until you're blue in the face; but that's the court's opinion in a nutshell.

I hope you are not acting like the court can never reverse a decision it has made or realize it made a bad decision. It reversed a decision in order to grant Obergfell a victory. So we know that is not the case.

Petitioners’ “fundamental right” claim falls into the most sensitive category of constitutional adjudication. Petitioners do not contend that their States’ marriage laws violate an enumerated constitutional right, such as the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. There is, after all, no “Companionship and Understanding” or “Nobility and Dignity” Clause in the Constitution. See ante, at 3, 14. They argue instead that the laws violate a right implied by the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that “liberty” may not be deprived without “due process of law.” - Chief Justice John Roberts.

Indeed why are we playing games. There is no protection from loneliness or right to dignity as expressed by Justice Kennedy in support of the majority opinion in the Constitution. I am sure none of your have ever head of a companionship or dignity clause in the constitution. In fact I am willing to bet the majority of you heard the law is reason free from passion statement, yet here you see Kennedy say the law is to respond to the emotions of individuals and conveys emotional support. So why are you suddenly acting as if what Kennedy said has always been the case or ignoring the repercussions of what was said? Because this outcome is one you agree with?