Even under rational basis the court still has to determine if there is a legitmate state interest - and when the sole evidence relied on by the legislature is a study, it must at least have some indicia of reliability.
Besides, who cares who thought what about marriage a thousand years ago or even fifty years ago? All that matters is what society decides now. And right now, our society as a whole is deciding that same-sex marriage is perfectly fine and dandy. You can argue against it, that’s your right, but it doesn’t change the fact.
This isn’t about speech. It’s about actions.
You can be opposed to same-sex marriage. You can tell people you’re opposed to same-sex marriage. But when you do something to obstruct a same-sex marriage, it’s no longer just speech.
Besides, I have no problem with limiting bigotry - with the goal of eventually eliminating it entirely. Bigotry is not some value we need to defend. It’s like crime or poverty or disease - our goal for bigotry should be zero. If we discover new areas of bigotry in fifteen years that we’re now overlooking, then we can work on eliminating those when we find them.
The argument that we shouldn’t prohibit bigotry because the term could then be misapplied is weak. Would you argue that we shouldn’t prohibit murder as a crime? Because, using your argument, if we establish the precedent that certain actions can be defined and prohibited as crimes then we could conceivably define anything as a crime and prohibit it. Theoretically this might be possible but I’m going to assume good sense will prevail in the future as it does now. People aren’t going to accept having actions arbitrarily defined as crimes or bigotry.
The sad part is, anyone who thinks SSM is logically wrong, icky, immoral is completely free to not get married to someone of the same sex. The problem I have is when those folks try to limit the opinions and choices of the rest of us, without any real cause
This is laughable! You don’t like lone judges making decisions, you don’t like legislatures making decision, you don’t like entire populations making decisions…
What it boils down to is “I don’t like X, therefore, X shouldn’t exist”. Hey, who died and made YOU dictator-for-life?
You’re in a fading minority. Too bad.
I agree with him that humans shouldn’t marry lions.
I believe Miller’s boyfriend is a transman so legally their relationship is considered homosexual, but biologically they could conceivably conceive.
Hitler. 
So much for my live-action Thundercats reboot. :mad:
He’s just grumpy because he got up on the wrong side of history today.
this is patently false. Institutions are not for a brief moment or they cease to be institutions. Families have existed for millennia.
So is racism and polygamy! Is “ancient” the only requirement you desire in the law of the land? We should just crown a king, implement the Code of Hammurabi and implement a never ending war of conquest on our neighbors for their resources?
How is it possible to think like this in the modern world?
They marry for other reasons. There are multiple grounds for marriage, but marriage is between opposite sexes. My point was why marriage developed to begin with, and those reasons principally have to do with parenthood and parentage.
Institutions change, or they cease to be institutions. See: Monarchy, and its relative dearth in the modern world. And yet governments persist.
You cannot pick and choose what you want to support by tradition. If you want marriage, be aware that it is something ancient. If you offer as support for something that "it has been done throughout history and across cultures’ you cannot use that same argument against something. You have to be consistent. ****The ancients had marriage, duh! ****How can we moderns have something so ancient? You cannot have it both ways!
So is religion. And yet people don’t sacrifice bulls anymore. We don’t live in the ancient world anymore, and the institutions that are kept from that time have all significantly changed. The ones that didn’t change got discarded.
Well, we still do that last one. 
What gay marriage proponent is arguing based on the fact that marriage is old?
I think Melchior’s real problem is a complete ignorance of linguistics and semiotics.
The meaning of a word is determined by usage. If everyone starts calling cats “dogs”, well then … cats are “dogs”. There’s no point in grumbling “But a cat isn’t a ‘dog’!” A single individual doesn’t get to decide what a word means.
They are asking to participate in something that is old.
Or else what?
You know, this is precisely what Utah is struggling with. Because if we aren’t “aware” some unidentified terrible thing happens. Your unidentified terrible thing seems to be “Because if you change it, 40,000 year old people will be really really confused.”
But I will stand up straight and tall and say fuck the 40,000 year old people! Nyah!