Not to rain on their parade, and I share in their happiness as human beings, but they had "the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples" prior to this decision: That is, the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, you know, what "marriage" has meant for human history up until 10 years ago.

Optics and rhetoric are on one side here: The issue has been framed so that anyone feeling differently--whether guided by religion, tradition, morals or conscience--is deemed to be a bigot.

@Resident: And 60 years ago everyone had the same legal right to marry someone of the opposite gender but only of the same race.

Just because discrimation might be enshrined in history for a number of years/decades/centuries still does not make it right and does not make it something we shouldn't fight to change.

@also a resident: Agree with your last sentence, but following that logic, where do you draw the line? Multiple spouses? Below the age of consent? The deceased? Animals? Sincerely curious as to how you make the distinction, and not trying to make light of discrimination.

"I am a bigot and I have bigoted opinions" is a statement never said by bigots, ever.
They all have reasons to validate discriminating and denying equal marriage rights to others; reasons in their minds that are more important than equal rights for others. Lots and lots of rationalizations will be used, but I see who you really are. You cannot hide unless you hide.

I was around for the equal rights fight in the 60s and I saw the exact same "arguments" about how people aren't being bigoted, they just had other reasons why blacks should not have equal rights. Its all so very familiar, but extremely transparent now.

The deceased, animals, really? what about those who can sign a legal document, that easy enough to understand? won't get into multiple spouses as I actually don't have an issue with that, but from what I hear it would not work with the current processes around marriage (property division, etc.)
Everyone may have had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but not marry someone they loved, that they chose, which is not the same right. Not sure why this bothers some people so much - I mean, yes, there was that fine print that was snuck in saying everyone now could only marry someone of the same sex (oh, wait, no there wasn't)

When straights get married does anyone say "Where does it end?"
2 people in love. That's where it begins and ends. So sayeth the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Any other bridge will be crossed if and when we get there.

Ah, and fast-forward another 50 years or so and what do we find
on the SCOTUS docket? Proposition 8A, equal rights for humans marrying their pets. Can't wait.

The Kukoos are loose.

@Relax: No, because man + woman = child (subject to reproductive issues, age and choice...yes, yes). Come on.

*****

Not everyone who disagrees with the state-sanctioned right that was found today in the 5th Amendment to permit same-sex marriage is a bigot. Not everyone who disagrees with the Court's reasoning (which, re Prop 8, I find to be weak and anti-democratic), is a bigot. I'm happy for anyone who finds love.

I say it's about time. Everyone has the right to be happy. Love is love does not matter if you are man/ man, woman / woman or man / woman we all have the right love someone

History is full of examples of injustice, bigotry and inequality. I am happy that we are improving.

Any two people in love should be able to marry, period.

When did having a differing opinion become grounds for being called a bigot???? and when did morality and natural law become so threatening?

My post here was censored away. This present post will probably be the last post that I ever make on the Voice's web site. Thanks to all of you who have considered the ideas that I have managed to get by the censors here. You can converse with me by sending email; see http://ideafarm.com .