"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[polymath257]

What was Obergefell v. Hodges about? A ruling that overturned state-level bans/ballot initiatives/laws on gay marriage. It also struck down portions of DOMA (passed by a veto-proof majority of democratically-elected congressmen/senators). Do we run our country by opinion polls coupled with judicial activists or do we run it according to a democratic process? It's not clear anymore.

What exactly were you hoping for, Steve?  That a minority would end up deciding marriage rights for the majority?  Isn't that the exact sort of thing you've been yammering against in this very thread?  When majority rule is in your favor, it's right as rain, but reverse the positions and suddenly it's hold up, Martha, we've got a problem here! Or perhaps you thought that there was a knife edge wherein the right to marriage was so fundamental as to deserve enshrinement in the very constitution itself, but not sufficiently fundamental to trigger the relevant fourteenth amendment protections?  In the end, a majority of the Supreme Court justices found, contrary to ham-fisted legal opinions otherwise, that no such knife edge where you could comfortably rest your tuckus existed.  So out come the charges of judicial activism.  Do you know what judicial activism is, Steve?  It's code among conservatives for, "opinions that we don't like."  When it comes to Obergefell, it's called judicial activism.  When it comes to Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, why then it's just called "good old fashioned jurisprudence."  It's nothing more than a shibboleth, Steve, plain and simple.

I wonder if Steve and crowd object to the redefinition of 'person' to include corporate entities. I'd bet that the concept of 'person' is at least as old as that of 'marriage' and has always, until redefined, only denoted human beings.