Lide pretended the legal decision is a done deal. So do you. It's not.<quoted text>For the same reasons so many other other laws have been changed and amendments have been added to the original Constitution; existing laws are at odds with Constitutional law. Why was a "legal change necessary" to allow bi-racial couples to marry? Different reason? Weren't the original state-by-state laws against interracial marriage based on adherence to laws in the Bible? Should it be legal for states, on their own, to deny rights to people based on Biblical law?
Now, of course, please think of some ways to try to insult me - albeit unsuccessfully - for asking such questions. We're all used to your rebuking style by now.
I frankly don't care what this Court decides. I simply point out the vast distinction between ss coupleand marriage that no law can change.
Neither of you can argue those differences.