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

[Mister Agenda]

So what? How is that an argument to not allow them? You seem to be literally saying it shouldn't be allowed because gay people are a minority.

No, your point was to weaken the concept of marriage defined as between a man and a women by bringing in historical references to homosexual relationships. My answer was to address that point. 

My argument is that instead of a democratic process, 5 people redefined a concept so old. Why do I care? Just the principle of the thing. Justice Roberts sums it up:

In his dissent, Roberts argued that the issue of same-sex marriage should be decided not by the courts but by the public process.
"Just who do you think we are?" Roberts asked, calling the majority's decision "an act of will, not legal judgment."
He implored his audience to "understand well" what his dissent is about.
"It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples," he said. "It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes under the law."
Note he refers to his brethren as "lawyers."
Roberts said that the Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
"The people of a state are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition," he said.
Roberts eviscerated his colleagues for "stealing this issue from the people" and in doing so "casting a cloud" over same-sex marriage.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/...index.html

The USA is a constitutional republic, not a mob democracy. As the saying goes, when two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner, the sheep loses. In the USA, minorities have rights that can't be easily voted away by the majority. To deprive someone of the opportunity to take part in an action freely allowed to others, it must be shown that barring them from doing so is allowed under the constitution or show a compelling interest in enforcing the restriction for such reasons as national security or because it would cause greater harm to the rights of other citizens. The Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility to determine cases concerning these matters. I don't always agree with their decisions, and expect to disagree more in the near future, but if they make a wrong decision, it's not because it wasn't enough people deciding it. If Americans don't like the way the laws are interpreted, they have avenues to address that. New laws can be made that are more in line with the constitution. The constitution itself can be amended, if enough people agree with you that it should be. If you're so into the majority determining what's right and wrong, try that.