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

[SteveII]

1. its the principle of the thing

Meaningless statement.  What is the principle, and how is it being violated?

2. people get attached to a definition after 10,000 years

So?  This is an actual "I dislike change" statement.  Meaningless when it comes to policy.

3. it's a slippery slope if 5 people can just decide for everyone. What's next from the bench?

Public opinion was in favor of same-sex marriage before United States v. Windsor.  Moreover, SCOTUS' job is to determine the constitutionality of the country's laws. They determined that the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.  

4. it's a symbol of a relativistic culture which is then linked to the crumbling of the fabric of society

Opinion stated as fact.  And, really, if you want to talk about a crumbling fabric of society, I'd think divorce would be much higher on your hit list.

5. belief that marriage was ordained by God (traditionally defined) as the most important institution ever created for mankind (not a religious institution) and should not be redefined ever.

It's ordained by god, but not religious?  Talk about wanting your cake and eating it, too.  In any event, this belief doesn't reflect reality.  In the US, marriage is a secular arrangement between a couple and the government.  Nothing more.

So, "I fear change," "I don't think this one particular definition should change," and not much else.  None of it rational.

Also, civil unions weren't a realistic option simply due to the notion that "separate but equal isn't equal."  We (well, some of us) learned from the Civil Rights era.

I couldn't care less about your objections to various people's reasons. The objection could be because you flipped a coin for all I care. The point is that objecting to the change in definition does not entail bigotry. The funny thing is that almost all of you thought it a no-brainer that it was connected.  No one has been able to make that case--not even close.