Note: I edited this down a bit because I felt like it was a bit ramble-y.
If you want to see the majority opinion and the dissent you can download it from this article. The majority opinion and dissent are arduous and I jumped around a bit (okay, a lot) but a decent read. Most of the dissenters simply argue that the Supreme Court didn't have the right to rule and that they were overstepping their power.
The argument against which I have such a hard time with is expressed here in an excerpt from Justice Roberts' dissent:
"The premises supporting this concept of marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman.When sexual relations result in the conception of a child,that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond."
Aside from the legality of same-sex unions, I find this whole discussion of marriage based upon a necessity for procreation baffling. If I had married a man I still would not have wanted biological children. Does this mean that I should not have been able to marry? If an intent and ability to procreate was a prerequisite for marriage I know of many happily married couples who would not have been able to marry including those who don't want kids, were born infertile, became infertile through accident or surgery, who are too old to have kids, etc. There are also people who have no biological children but are helping raise kids through adoption (props to J, B). There are even people who aren't married who feel called to give their lives to help raise kids through foster care (props to A!) I just don't get the whole discussion of marriage based upon procreation. Defining it that way doesn't just take away the reason for same-sex unions but unions for anyone who doesn't want or isn't able to have kids.
New topic, I can honestly say that I signed the paperwork when I did because I was scared that if I waited (so that I could have some time to plan a wedding) there would be some sort of legal shenanigans that would take away my ability to do so. I am relieved that I no longer have to worry about what could happen if we traveled to another state that did not recognize my marriage and my wife or I were hospitalized.
Let's close with a humorous tidbit of Justice Scalia's dissent, I think the first part she is quoting from Kennedy's majority opinion
"“The nature of marriage is that,through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy andspirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."
