Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Similarly, today's opinion could easily be applied in the context of polygamous marriage or same-sex incestuous marriage.  Is that next? 

I haven't read the ruling but other people who have read it led me to believe that it was fairly skilfully tailored in such a way as to not easily be expanded into these sorts of outcomes.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

DISCLAIMER: I'm making this post more as an apologetic for certain members of my extended family than anything else.

It's possible, probable even, that at some point in the relatively near future the principle that couples should have access to civil marriage regardless of the combination of their sexes will be widely understood to be grounded on first principles in such a way that nobody can argue otherwise in good faith. At that point we'll indeed be able to say that people who oppose same-sex marriage are a distasteful fringe and can't possibly hold their position for well-intentioned reasons. I don't think we've yet reached the point where that grounding on first principles is self-evident or self-explanatory. I kind of hope we do (mostly because I think that if opposition to same-sex marriage becomes completely socially unacceptable then there are people whose opinions and morals I otherwise respect who will feel obliged to come around on it), but I don't think we have. It's still possible for somebody to oppose same-sex marriage and not be a generally bad person.