Clowns on the left want to over-regulate, jokers on the right want to under-regulate, stuck in the middle without brew.

I'm not sure that those arguing the public doesn't care really have it right. There is an apathy, no doubt, but it may just as well stem from a sense of powerlessness, as from one of detachment. "You can't fight the Man", is an ingrained ethos of our times. If it does no good to demonstrate you care, you just move on; it's not really acceptance, it's jaded fatalism.

... that the quality assurance contractor for the project, Maximus, had this to say, "Oracle's performance is clearly lacking. Their inability to adhere to industry standards and professional software and project management tenets warrants further review."

... it wants its news flash back.

... that the Ancient Greeks managed to do better at calculating Pi, all without shotguns!

... revere the COBOL, for Holy is the COBOL. Thou shalt take no other language before it ...

... people make mistakes. Then again, mistakes make people. At any rate, Sony is no stranger to making mistakes. All the good will they create with this stunt will surely bolster their flagging bottom line, like that wonderful rootkit they devised some time back. You really can't buy incompetence like that; you have to grow it yourself.

Well, that's a reasonable point, but my question was specifically about the allegation which was made of it being a "fundamental right". Your point opens another can of worms, that of defining a "compelling reason".

No, you miss the point. Because prisoners get something doesn't reflect on any absolute determination of whether it is a "fundamental right", one way or the other. All you can conclude is that, in some societies, and only some societies, they are allowed to marry.

Simply to show that prisoners have rights beyond what society apparently deems as fundamental.

Even most liberals do not argue that free health care is a fundamental right, yet in recent history prisoners in the U.S. have generally been the beneficiaries of such, so I'm not entirely sure that is much of a proof, either way.

"... we've been sliding down it for 126 years and counting." I find nothing in that observation with which to disagree, but I'd apply it in a much broader context than marriage.

Please, do not misunderstand, I appreciate and value your comments, but am somewhat unconvinced that social or religious constructs really deserve to be considered "fundamental". Particularly ones with so apparently malleable a definition as marriage.

Clearly, in the context of United States case law, you make an unassailable point.