Here's the full transcript of the oral arguments
Specifically read the exchanges with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kennedy
I think there's substance to the point that sociological information is new,” he said. “We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more. - Anthony KennedyThe problem — the problem with the case is that you're really asking, particularly because of the sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into uncharted waters, and you can play with that metaphor, there's a wonderful destination, it is a cliff. - Anthony KennedyI'm not sure, counsel, that it makes -- I'm not sure that it's right to view this as excluding a particular group. When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn't get around and say let's have this institution, but let's keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn't include homosexual couples. - RobertsThe definition of what marriage has always been is acknowledged by ALL Justices throughout the entire discussion. Even Kagan and Sotomayor question from a perspective that people's rights are being denied. Not that Marriage has ever meant anything other than man + woman. It's radically extreme to claim marriage has ever meant anything other than man + woman.Outside of the marriage context(even Sotomayor is not arguing that marriage means something other than man + woman and talking about Nero and Spirit Brothers absurdity), can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?
So can you finally get around to directly answering me questions now? Thanks
I'm not going to debate what the definition of marriage has been with you. This isn't even in dispute between rational individuals. You're a radical frothing at the mouth extremist if you believe it's ever been anything other than man + woman. Nero and Spirit Brother absurdity doesn't prove that the collective psychological and emotional understanding of the definition of marriage by civil society throughout history has ever meant man + ? or woman + ?Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to -- that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and the child, assuming they are of age -- I can -- I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting the a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left? - Justice Sotomayor
Even the Spartans understood the important of marriage as an institution, and there was rampant homosexuality within their culture.
So we're back at step one. You seem unable to answer simple straightforward questions. I'm going to ask you one time. You're emotional temper tantrums and screaming "bigot" at anyone who disagrees with you is beginning to bore me.
Do you believe marriage is a "Civil Right"?
Yes or No
If gays get the special right to change the definition of what marriage is, why can't anyone else have the same right to change the definition as they see fit too?
What has changed is that most of society now recognizes being gay as a status not just conduct.
I am just demonstrating that the claim "marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman" is untrue.
I am sorry if you don't find factual information persuasive, although it is often the case that people will not accept factual information when it challenges their preconceived beliefs.
Every political good carried to the extreme must be productive of evil.