Nowhere does it say "as defined by a bigoted interpretation of a specific god".
It sure as fuck doesn't say "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote".
There exists in the modern world a legal classification of "married", which conveys upon you certain legal rights and privileges. What SCOTUS has done is say "the 14h ammendment says"
There is no religious exemption.
Doesn't "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote" cover exactly what exists in the states that have not allowed same sex marriage? (I'm not saying I agree with their laws - their laws encroach upon liberty, which I don't like).
Since the laws banning it applied exactly equally to everyone (i.e. a same sex couple, of any sexual orientation, was not allowed to marry), how did it not exclude everyone equally? Therefore treating everyone as equals under the eyes of the law.
Same sex heterosexual couples can get married (in states that allow same sex marriage). Suggesting otherwise would be both heterosexist, hypocritical and wrong. It has already happened - http://www.theaustralian.com.a... - Their reason for marriage is perfectly valid. People can get married for whatever reason they want. The people upset at their marriage are hypocrites. The whole point of allowing same sex marriage is that any two people who want to marry should be able to, for whatever reason they want - suddenly reversing that stance when two heterosexuals do it is poor form.
This law should now make it legal for friendship marriages for the purpose of becoming an American citizen legal as well.