First, the key to understanding fundamentalists is knowing what the word “fundament” means.
Then you can address the fact that they are quite fine with Sharia Law, as long and the “Sharia” is their own particular interpretation of a book written for goat-herds 2500 years ago and interpreted today by bigots and assholes.
The vilification argument is one used badly with respect to most heated issues (especially social issues). In my mind, it generally boils down to “because I am right only the other side should be fair game for vilification.” It’s pretty weak regardless of whether I agree with the person professing their own thin skinned nature on the root issue or not. There was vilification from both sides of the SSM marriage debate before this decision. I see no reason to expect that to expect significant change in that anytime soon. Over time, hopefully, that wanes as culture adopts to what’s new. The cynic in me simply expects the issue to change and not the nature of discourse.
Is it? I highly doubt many people’s opinions about same-sex marriage changed on Friday, at least, no more than any other day. I don’t think anybody will villify opponents who wouldn’t have done so a week ago. If someone expresses opposition to marriage equality in public, the specific content of the response is likely to be different in the post-Obergefell world, but I don’t think the basic thrust will.
I’m sure some do, unless you’re claiming those aren’t really churches. But as you implied, the definition of civil marriage isn’t a matter for the church, any more than the definition of holy matrimony is a matter for the state.
I’m not sue it matters that it was “written for goatherds.” Nothing wrong with goatherds. A lot of the functions of religion can be handled by secular institutions at least as well, but that’s just as true for 21st-century goatherds as it is for the rest of us.
The “bigots and assholes” is the part that’s the problem.
Some of my best friends are goatherds!
At least they smell like it. 
I prefer the second definition. Makes “fundamentalist” a whole lot more amusing.
From Merriam-Webster.com:
Definition of FUNDAMENT
1
: an underlying ground, theory, or principle
2
a : buttocks
b : anus
I’m pretty sure that’s what he was going for.
Keep your church out of my state and I’ll keep the state out of your church.
No.
But on a slightly off-topic note: While I whole-heartedly welcome government recognition of gay marriages, I still think it would be better for it to come our of the democratic process; in other words, for people to vote for representatives who would enact laws recognizing gay marriage.
There are several reasons for this (not in any particular order):
[ul]
[li]The decision gives opponents a reason to feel the outcome was “shoved down their throats”, by an elite, unelected tribunal. It’d be better if they were shown that they’d simply been out-voted.[/li][li]From a purely partisan perspective, gay marriage was a losing issue for the Republicans. By reaching its decision, the Supreme Court effectively takes the issue off the table. This gives Republicans an advantage in upcoming elections. (Or, put more accurately, it removes an impediment at the polls, they’d otherwise have been stuck with.)[/li][li]As a proponent of democracy, I think its generally better when people are enlightened through the democratic process, rather than being told “this is how things are now” without given a vote in the matter.[/li][li]As a lawyer, I tend to be legalistic about things. I’m not sure that the right to marry itself is a right guaranteed by the constitution. If it is, then there’s a question about which people have that right, and which don’t. I’ll tell you a sort of funny story: a couple of weeks ago, we came back from a visit to my sister’s house. My sister is married to a woman. She (my sister) has a daughter who is my daughter’s cousin. They love each other. (They tried to run away together at the airport, and my daughter bawled inconsolably all the way through security.) Anyway, the next day my daughter asked about how it was that her cousin has two moms. My wife explained gay marriage to her, and my daughter triumphantly declared, "When I grow up, I’m going to marry (my cousin)! We explained that that was still not legal, and she said she was going to fight for the right to marry her cousin. Anyway, the point of the story is, why shouldn’t she be allowed to marry her cousin? Because it’s icky?[/li][li]I know people hate “slippery slope” arguments, particularly in this area, but either marriage is a right or it isn’t. There are some religious groups in this country where polygamy is a part of their religion (fundamentalist Mormons, Muslims). If freedom of religion is a right (and freedom of religion is actually in the constitution) why shouldn’t they be allowed to practice polygamy?[/li][/ul]
Anyway, I think it’d be better if legal recognition of marriage was decided at the polls, not by judges trying to apply logic to an inherently illogical topic.
Having said that, I openly welcome my gay friends and family to the misery we straight people have been enduring for generations. 
Yeah… let’s wait another 20 years for that to happen…
eh. Upthread people were saying that gay marriage is already widely accepted in many parts of the country, and was becoming more widely accepted every day. Do you really think it would have taken 20 years for the majority of people to come to that conclusion?
I don’t.
But didn’t ‘We the people’ elect the presidents who seated these judges? As set down in the articles of the state. Which was again set by 'We the people."
And it’s not just nine judges, is it? How many judges over the last decade heard a version of the case for SSM, BEFORE it landed with the supremes? Did not the majority, of those many, also agree with them? I think they did.
Claiming it’s just nine justices seems incredibly disengenuous.
(As is ‘elite, unelected tribunal’. It’s unavoidably ‘eleite’ by being a body of nine for an entire nation, they have never been nor should be elected, and it’s not some tribunal, it’s the highest court in the land!)
No, but how many years are you willing to wait?
“…it was not Zeus that had published me that edict; not such are the laws set among men by the justice who dwells with the gods below; nor deemed I that thy decrees were of such force, that a mortal could override the unwritten and unfailing statutes of heaven.”
[INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT] - Antigone, by Sophocles[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]
That would be a valid objection. If, this was a theocracy.
It would have required intervention by the courts eventually, because, sure as anything, at least one state would have held out against it indefinitely. That leaves the Full Faith and Credit clause imperiled. Only the court system – or a constitutional amendment – could solve that problem.
The same is true for interracial marriage. It would have been legalized eventually…but it would have taken longer, and certain states would have held out for twenty years…or longer, leaving large numbers of people married in one state but not in another, and leaving a bleeding wound in the flanks of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause.
If you have a constitution that says we have to treat people equally, it’s folly to say, “Oh, except in those cases where we feel they don’t deserve it,” and then demand that the problem be solved by legislation. Legislation is where the problem came from to begin with. It’s litigation that’s needed when two different levels of law exist in contradiction to each other.
Or was founded upon the concept of religious liberty. Mind you, I’m not talking about a court clerk acting as an agent to the government, but private businesses.
To claim religious liberty to deny services to gay people is to so bastardize the term as to have no useful meaning at all. Anyone could justify nearly any act of bigotry and claim it was protected under “religious liberty”.
So if I owned a sandwich shop and refused to serve anyone wearing a cross or carrying a bible, you would be ok with that?
And in fact, many have tried. Many have claimed that interracial marriage violates their religious beliefs.
If you look at my post, the “elite, unelected…” argument was explicitly attributed to opponents of gay marriage. I predict you’ll see this as a talking point among Republicans in the near future. (At least until they obtain control over the court.)
The bigger picture is this: suppose Republicans win the next election. As a result, they control Congress, and the Presidency. Now suppose, in the future, they get to choose one or more Supreme Court Justices. The 5:4 decisions we’ve seen recently (including this one) will become 5:4 decisions going the other way. Will those of you who are celebrating the power of 9 unelected judges still be celebrating then? Will you celebrate when they restrict the rights of women to have abortions? Gut Obamacare? Overturn this decision?
In other words, are you really celebrating the triumph of the Supreme Court over the democratic process, or are you celebrating this particular decision?
Because there’s a not insubstantial chance that the Supreme Court could soon be handing down decisions that you really really hate. Will you still be saying that the Supreme Court is awesome then?