Justice Marvin R. Baxter, joined by Justice Ming W. Chin, said the ruling "creates the opportunity for further judicial extension of this perceived constitutional right into dangerous territory."

"Who can say that in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?" Baxter wrote.

tbh i can't think of a non-"that's icky!" reason why polygamous and incestuous marriages are banned :\

tbh i can't think of a non-"that's icky!" reason why polygamous and incestuous marriages are banned :\

If we allow gay marriages the terrorists have won. That's exactly what they want, to destroy our family values and law system.

Allowing gay marriages is the same as legalizing murder and rape - cuz that's the next logical step.

Says who? The bible?

From Webster's Dictionary:

Marriage - N. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Recently, however, the dictionary added this "extra" definition:

a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

I don't want to get into my whole religious opinion of the issue, since (like any mention of religion in issues like abortion and homosexuality) it will probably just stir up an all-out flame war and battle over who's "right" and who's "wrong."

You take your life views from what Webster's Dictionary says?

But, if the word "marriage" is the issue, lets call it a "life commitment" or a "love union" or whatever people want to call it... As long as people are free to join under the law, I don't see any objection.