[roger_smith]

@Dyme , don't tell anyone to be so happy about this ruling, because we're Libertarians or something, then go on to tell us that gun restrictions need not to be raised to a certain extent. And I'm glad I didn't have to call you out on the semi-auto assault rifle bullshit, at least it gave me a good laugh. (Your favorite reporters on CNN and MSNBC telling you that you need background checks, thankfully, doesn't mean that it has "public support")

@Saikou I encourage anybody reading what you just posted to also read the context of the underlined text, by the way.

But may I ask, exactly what you're trying to get at with that post? The notion that incestuous marriage is now legal, by way of the wording of those excerpts, seems possible, but later on the text finally starts to mention same-sex marriage specifically, not just the broad right to marry anyone that you love. This is exactly the slippery slope that people refer to. If 50 years ago, gay marriage and gay relationships were so frowned upon, (just as much as, say, incest, in 2015), then don't folks think it completely possible that in another 50, #LoveWins again in a monumental supreme court ruling that states a daughter can marry her father?

Up until Friday's ruling it was already legal in more states to marry a first cousin than it was for 2 members of the same sex to marry