Mr. Justice Scalia is a particularly toxic flavor of Roman Catholic: he is a member of Opus Dei, the shadowy extreme right-wing organization answerable only to the Pope. John-Paul II canonized its founder.

The things Opus Dei was portrayed as doing in “The Da Vinci Code” were CHILD’S PLAY compared to what they get up to in real life.

I don’t recall now, but I THINK at least four of the five Roman Catholic Justices on the US Supreme Court ARE members of Opus Dei (!).

The pope has promised to excommunicate anyone who supports a woman’s right to choose, or marriage equality.

Wonder how THAT will play out when cases involving either one inevitably come before the Court?

But as a Transexual woman I feel this is too little, too late. We need equal civil rights, not empty promises.

Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.

None of that would be next. For one thing, there are already multiple laws prohibiting everything you mentioned. Dozens of studies show that serious abuses occur in polygamous relationships, while dozens of other studies show that same-sex relationships are no more likely to be abusive than opposite-sex relationships.

And, as several other posters have said, the other relationships you mentioned would have to be voted on or decided separately – even if the laws against them somehow disappeared. Marriage for same-sex partners would protect exactly one kind of couple: two adults of the same sex. And they would get no more or less protection than two adults of the opposite sex.

You can’t point at gay marriage because of it without pointing at strait marriage first if you are going to make that kind of argument.

Did they ask this question when heterosexuals first started getting married?

“if marriage was approved for same sex- what’s next brother and sister or multi-wifes or multi husbands.”

Why does anything have to be “next”? That’s like saying, ‘If we treat homosexuals equally before the law, then anything goes.
‘Anything’ does not go, joe. This – treating gay American citizens equally before the law – goes. Currently, no one in America has the right to multiple spouses. If polygamists want to make a case for multi-spouses, let them make their case. It has nothing to do with our case – for equal treatment. Mulitple spouses is simply a different situation and is not what is being discussed here.

“I all for same sex, but then we would have to accept all the others”

Please explain why we would “have to” do that? It makesno sense to me.