Civil unions would have been one option. Most of the rest of the world went that route. However, that only solves the issue of equal protection under the law. There were/are other agendas involved in this decision, which is why there is all of the talk about love and family and the two becoming greater than the whole.

As Justice Roberts stated in his dissenting opinion, it's fine to celebrate this decision, just don't celebrate the constitution for it, as the decision, as written has nothing to do with the constitution. (paraphrased)

Then the court should have simply stated that marriage, in the eyes of the law is a legal contract that same sex couples were denied from entering into. This is a violation of the 14th amendment.

But they didn't. Instead the SCOTUS said that there is a new right called dignity and that marriage is about love and mutual respect and support of the family, yada, yadad. While I do not necessarily disagree with those sentiments, love et al is not what the court was asked to address as it is not protected under the 14th amendment.

My point being, the court, in its majority opinion, should have dealt with matters of law, not sociology.

There are no benefits for ones ability to procreate -- same sex, different sex or single. There are benefits for the results of procreating and raising a child, whether biologically or through adoption.
Same sex couples already have access to those protections, as do single people. (You don't have to be married to get the child tax credit, you just have to have a child).

With regards to marrying yourself, the whole issue is that marriage brings a number of rights to the spouse by law without having one spouse specifically grant them to the other. Marrying yourself to get these rights doesn't make sense, as you already have them.

You make my point. There is no constitutional right to dignity under the law. There is a constitutional right to equal protection. I wonder, if the Boston Bomper can now appeal his case based on this new constitutional right of dignity?

The fact that I got modded down for flamebait just reinforces the notion that the issue of same-sex marriage is about something other than equal protection under the law. That is fine, but the reality is the court was supposed to address equal protection under the law, not the changing morals of society as it relates to marriage.

For the record, I'm not opposed to same sex-sex marriage. I just think the SCOTUS should stick to its intended purpose versus being a vehicle for social change. Ironically, many states already made the argument for them on how the 14th amendment was being violated. Not one of them included concepts of the expression of love (probably, because no state laws on marriage require the expression of love as a requirement). SCOTUS however has now made that part of the definition of marriage.

The problem is that if SCOTUS can define marriage one way, then in the future, it can define it a different way, depending on how public opinion changes. If they had relied on the 14th amendment argument, the burden of changing the definition would be on those wanting to change it and showing it wasn't a violation. But, then, that is not what the SCOTUS did.

While I do not necessarily disagree with you, how is the constitutionality of same sex marriage related to expanding the constitution to include a right to drugs?

Or, some may consider it judicial activism since the majority opinion talks about marriage being about love and commitment, and two people becoming more than they were before, etc. To many, regardless of one's views or same-sex marriage, it seems that the majority opinion went beyond equal protection under the law.

People who approve funding for DARPA (and others) aren't usually interested in the scientific reality, just the hype.

That will never happen. Congress will pass a bill not allowing it.

Does the so called rejuvenated planet behave similar to the new planet - plate tectonics, chemistry, atmosphere, etc? Seems that to rejuvenate a planet would require more than just blasting it with stellar plasma and burning away it's surface. Just because it is now hotter so that we can detect it doesn't mean it is rejuvenated.

If I leave the electric oven on and don't notice, but turning off the light in the kitchen allows me to see the orange glow does not mean my oven is rejuvenated. So, why should essentially the same thing mean a planet is?

Rejuvenation implies that the item rejuvenated is equivalent to function, performance, etc. of an earlier state. Rebuilding a small engine would be a type of rejuvenation. As for a planet, if it is rejuvenated, then not only temperature would change, but plate tectonics and other planetary systems would be, too. Your final comment actually, nothing you do to a person actually makes them younger applies to exoplanets, too.

Yeah. We have people identifying themselves as non-human and we have people trying to identify various non-humans (ie. chimps) as human. It is a crazy world we live in.

If race and gender aren't based on anything anymore than what the individual identifies themself as, then why should planet of origin be any different? As for being an ambassador or getting diplomatic immunity, isn't that up to the entity granting such privileges, not the one sending them?

If Elon Musk identifies himself as a martian, who are we to judge? If gender is no longer based on chromosomes and race is no longer based on ancestry, then why should one's planetary identity be based on planetary origin?

Most things that people eat are completely engineered artificial foods. Real food does not contain ingredients. An apple is an apple. An egg is an egg and a chicken leg is a chicken leg. On the other hand, if there are ingredients listed on the label, then it is already engineered and most likely artificial. It is possible to have ingredients that are all foods in and of them self. A cobb salad could be an example, but even though it might not be artificial, if you are buying it pre-packaged, it is still engineered.