What the Court really has refused to recognize is the fundamental interest all individuals have in controlling the nature of their intimate associations.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
No marriage can stand up under the strain of incessant association.
There is hardly a case in which the dispute was not caused by a woman.
Marriage is a unique cultural relationship that has a long-standing tradition and societal meaning, which should not be redefined by the courts.
Our national media refuses to report that even the Supreme Court did not say marriage was a human right in all cases nor did it say that the heterosexual definition violated anyone's right or that the heterosexual definition of marriage was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court is not the impetus for constitutional change - we are.
Law cannot stand aside from the social changes around it.
Majorities and minorities cannot rightfully be taken at all into account in deciding questions of justice.
Judges should interpret the law, not make it.
Sexuality and gender don't change anyone's performance on the court.
The proposal that men and women should be treated equally under the law is hardly a controversial concept.