So what gives gays the right to refuse a bisexual individual's right to change the definition of marriage is to fit what they want then?
They don't have a "right" to refuse it....any more than heterosexuals have a "right" to refuse gays...or any more than gys have a "right" to have it changed. No one has a "right" to a DEFINITION being any particular fashion. So your question is idiotic to begin with as it's very premise is illogical.
10 years ago the concept of gay marrying was inconceivable.
Which is irrelevant to now. You don't seemingly understand or know what "precedence" means. 13 years ago many of the portinos of the PATRIOT Act that have been upheld would've been inconcievable to be implimented or viewed as constitutional. Twenty years ago the notion of needing to worry about charging underage kids with child pornography due to sending their boyfriend a naked picture was inconcievable due to the logistics of how it could be done. 65 years ago the notion of a woman serving in the military was blasphemous. 50 years ago the thought of a black and white couple marrying in the south was inconcievable. What is "inconcievable" in the past is not a basis for a strong and useful argument on how to function within the present.
The founders never would've concieved of gay marriage. They also never would've concieved of an Air Force, Cyber Security, and the world wide web. This is why the Founders laid forth a framework and foundation for the country to function on going forward...because htere's an understanding that they could not hope to know what 100 or 200 or 500 years in the future would bring, so they sought to create a document that would hopefully be both limiting in terms of the governments scope while adaptable to new realities.
Now, do I disagree with the notion of Marriage being some absolute constitutional right? Yes.
HOWEVER, unlike some other conservatives, I understand as well that the SCOTUS was established by that very same constitution. As such, I generally function from a mindset of reality. The reality is that until such time that the decision regarding marriage as a federall protected right is overturned, that it IS a right protected by the constitution. And as such, rulings and laws in the future need to adhere to that decision. To not do so it completely invalidate our legal system and the constitution itself as it basically proclaims that the system in place should be replaced with egotistical anarchy.
Would my preference be to over turn the precedence that marriage is a federally protected right, allowing individual states to govern it largely because it's simply yet another thing I don't believe the federal government needs to be involved in? Absolutely. But, until that happens, then subsiquent law relating to it MUST adhere to that ruling because THAT'S how it constitutionally works.
As to your paranoid conspiracy theorist tin foil rant at the end, save your breath typing that **** to me because I'm not going to gift you the benefit of any further response to such trash.
Precedence matters. If people want to define what the definition of marriage is at a state level and vote on it, fine put it up for a vote. The Founders never would have conceived of gay marriage. It was alien to them. Throughout history, gay marriage has never been a societal norm. Sure you can find a snippet here or there, (someone actually used Nero with a straight face earlier) but the concept of 2 men marrying has never been thought of on the same relevant plane of existence as "marriage" as it's been known throughout the history of mankind. You know, where a man and a woman come together to procreate and raise a family. Their sexual organs serve a purpose when joined. Propagation of the species. Marriage is an institution that brings the opposite sexes together. It has economic and social value.
Gay marriage is really about the destruction of the traditional family unit. It's one of the main objectives of cultural marxists.[/QUOTE]
