Given polygamy and incest are already unlawful, I just don't see how marriage equality suddenly makes them lawful!

I just wish folks/control freaks would stop trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to same sex marriage!

If you're against don't do it nor participate in any such ceremony!

No one is going to be asked to go against their own moral principles, not even those folk that stood silent and covered up for them as their own kind committed unspeakable, heinous, recidivist, crimes against kids!

Offended morals seem to be a little too convenient and selectively available when and if required!

If farmer dave(now we know why he works like a horse) wants to marry his horse(for which he has a longin for) time to protest or invoke and implement animal rights laws.

i.e., Thou shalt not whores around with horses or even hee haws!

Me I'd super glue the offending implement to the horse's tail and then send both parties galloping down the main street of their town?

Or maybe that's stretching things a little too far?
Rhrosty.

There's a certain amount of irony inherent in Mr O'Reilly's argument.

"The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868, and addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the law. It was proposed mainly in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War."

It is, of course, entirely reasonable to suggest that the Fourteenth Amendment did not, and could not, have contemplated the inclusion of same-sex marriage in its formulation. However, to rely upon a narrow reading of this particular corner of the Constitution for his objection to the ruling confounds his own argument, on the basis that he is doing exactly the same thing as that which he accuses the Supreme Court.

A modicum of research on the Amendment itself unearths some interesting aspects surrounding its passing. It was far from uncontroversial even in its time, being essentially a patch-job of the Thirteenth, and was itself quickly followed by the Fifteenth, which papered over a few more holes.

Which illustrates perfectly the futility of relying upon a 150-year-old statement of "rights" when assessing modern-day issues. The document will forever be open to interpretation by a court of law.

The three "Reconstruction Amendments", the 13th 14th and 15th, were clearly and unequivocally designed, and intended, to give all American citizens "equal rights", following the American Civil War - which was essentially about freeing slaves, and turning them into citizens. However, it wasn't until a Supreme Court decision in 1966 - nearly a hundred years later - that "the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race or color" was legally enforced.

The US Constitution has always been, and will always be, both the perfect gravy-train for lawyers and a crude weapon for deployment by political groups as, and when, they choose to do so. For, it needs to be emphasised, entirely political purposes.

Expressing surprise therefore that a Supreme Court, which is essentially a bunch of purely political appointments, produces a politically-driven verdict, is entirely disingenuous.

My arguments for a moratorium on gay marriage are NOT religion based in any way.
It is clear that the prime beneficiary of gay marriage is the legal profession. The market for potential litigation has to increase.

The following areas of law are likely to expand:
• Business of the divorce lawyers.
• Areas of criminal law which deal with bigamy, incest and consanguineous relationships.
• Areas of criminal law related to domestic violence.
• Laws related to inheritance, estate planning and contesting of wills.
• It is likely that laws will have to be updated in the areas of surrogacy and adoption.
• Given homosexual marriage is step 1, why not steps two polygamy or polyandrous marriage.

At the current time some twenty or so jurisdictions are known to have legalised gay marriage. The cautious approach would be to have a moratorium say for a couple of decades, until we have seen how gay marriages is bedded down and the social and legal problems thrown up this innovation are examined.
There is old adage which describes the exuberant enthusiasm of the mob lead by Shorten, Plibersek and other so-called progressives:
“Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread.

I much prefer the assessment of the dissenting back-to-the-past troglodytes such as Scalia available here:
http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2015/06/for-your-consideration-selection-of.html#more plus other postings too.

Remember too that Scalia and his fellow troglodytes are either members of, or closely associated with the deeply misogynist outfit opus dei. And quite frankly, anyone who admires and/or quotes Scalia as an "authority" on any topic whatsoever is seriously deluded.

First of all what constitutes marriage should be defined. In the existing social milieu, the union of a male and a female in wedlock only is called marriage. The misguided individuals who have developed some perverted sexual orientation due to some reasons ( this has to be studied in depth by psychologists and other concerned parties)cannot claim that they (homosexuals)have the right to marry and protection. Equal treatment under law cannot be stretched to things like the so called "same sex marriage" because it will lead to lot social problems. Equality of individuals under law cannot be allowed to affect society at large. Homosexuals bringing up children will be a disaster for the children.

Most of the comments posted miss the main message in my article.

I was not attempting to either advocate or criticise same-sex marriage per se (not in this piece anyhow). Instead the article sought to critique the judicial activism inherent in the majority Supreme Court judgement in this case. Such activism is an attack on the separation of powers. Effectively the Supreme Court is usurping the role of the legislature.

It is difficult to exaggerate the effects of activist interpretations of a constitution like ours or the American one. Firstly, such rulings override Parliament, which in the US case no longer gets to decide whether same-sex marriage is to be legal or not. The majority court decision now means that same-sex marriage has been a constitutional right in the US since 1868! We all know how difficult it is to change a constitution, which is now seemingly the only means of over-turning the decision of the five majority judges.

I don't have a problem with Judges either developing the common law or making broad interpretations of legislation. Parliament still has the power to pass new legislation that over-rides such decisions. Where activist judges make unreasonably broad interpretations of clauses in the constitution, they have become not only a law unto themselves but also set such law for all others and future generations.

The authors of the US Fourteenth Amendment would turn in their graves if they discovered that it was being interpreted to provide a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Daffy Duck,
Huh? Back to what past? There is no history of homosexual marriage, until about 2005 it didn't exist, it's a completely new invention, even for the Gay movement. There has been some other discussion on Facebook about the further ramification, especially regarding second amendment rights and things like the validity of their state concealed carry firearm permit in other states or in gun free zones.
"Progressive" social experiments always have the opposite effect to the one stated at their inception, I'm not overly worried about the fate of normal, healthy people but the writing may be on the wall for what we've come to identify as the "Gay community".

@Bren, Wednesday, 1 July 2015 7:55:38 PM

Agreed.

Add the quasi-judicial bodies that proliferate in the US and Australia.