"... 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.
... considering marriage a "fundamental right" would seem a slippery slope. Does an atheist have a fundamental right to be ordained a priest?
To be clear, I think Eich was scapegoated, but am of the opinion it is unfair to deny marriage to gays. I am only concerned here with what seems to me to be excessively broad definitions and the fallout that may result.
The trouble with being punctual is that people think you have nothing more important to do.