I'm curious.<quoted text>
No... It's not an idiotic response. It's a perfectly reasonable observation.
If you believe that current marriage laws should be dictated by history, then maybe you think that other institutions and behaviors should also be supported by their almost constant presence in history.
You just don't agree with them because you realize how absurd it would be for you to try to support slavery, war, genocide, gender inequality, racial and ethnic inequality, etc.
But marriage inequality, you're willing to support that based on the history of marriage--even though you KNOW that marriage has never been the same in all cultures throughout history. Arranged marriage, plural marriage, same-gender marriage, interracial marriage, "ghost marriage", etc. are just a few of the many faces of marriage over the history of mankind.
It doesn't matter. Our Supreme Court Justices, having had all the facts argued before them by the best attorneys and legal teams in the country, came to the conclusion that it is unconstitutional to deny federal rights and protections to a married couple who happen to be comprised of same-gender individuals. They found it unconstitutional to deny benefits and protections to married, same-gender couples who have children.
And there you have it... The law is clearly on our side here. It's probably getting close to closing time around here on this particular thread.
The decision has been made. Your team lost. We were triumphant. The definition of marriage (of which there are many) now includes same-gender couples.
Since the SCOTUS ruling equating ss couples with marriage, does that mean duplicate gendered couples will change to diverse gendered couples, or the other way around?
Will ss couples start mutually bearing children? I can't wait to see the change!
Oh, and when will a gay anus turn into a vagina?