AL Supreme Court orders probate judges not to license same sex marriages

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Encouraging more people to enter into such a conservative institution seems like a conservative move on the part of the courts. A real radical move would be to abolish the wretched institution entirely.

One could view the 13th Amendment as having already done that.  After all, it destroyed traditional marriage by making illegal the concept that the wife was the property of the husband.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Man, not even Oklahoma took the news this badly. Alabama is going to eat itself.

Oklahomans can eat at Braum's.  That's the difference.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A marriage is for two people.  There is no sharing of marriage between people.  There is no zero sum game where same-sex marriages change the nature of opposite sex marriage.     

And, legally, you can create a large bathroom that caters to both sexes, if you would like.  Besides, there's no deprivation if someone who is comfortable using such all gender bathroom uses a sex-segregated bathroom. 

So, this is just a stupid argument.

There are those opposed to SSM who would dispute that, tho certainly that is what civil marriage is primarily about these days.  I would agree with you that same-sex marriage does not change the nature of opposite sex marriage.

However, the bathroom analogy isn't a good one as we don't have a situation where everyone isn't provided access to a bathroom for their gender.  (Unless you're going to argue we have more than two genders by using a definition not based on physical attributes.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

However, the bathroom analogy isn't a good one as we don't have a situation where everyone isn't provided access to a bathroom for their gender.  (Unless you're going to argue we have more than two genders by using a definition not based on physical attributes.)

Everybody has access to a public bathroom so long as they choose the one that matches their sex. In a like manner everybody has access to marriage so long as they choose an opposite sex partner.

Yes of course marriage is not the same thing as going to the bathroom but the legal principals are the same. Also, unwanted interest situations already exist in bathrooms as gay men and straight men are required to use the same facilities.

Terrible analogy. We all need to take a leak. Marriage is a government recognised union of two people who are not related. That union has traditionally been, in good faith between a man and a woman who love each other with a sexual intimacy (scam marriages aside). That union may, or may not result in children. As to what sex, if any happens within that marriage is also of no business to the state. Even gay marriage opponents are generally not interested in policing that area. The reason why state sanctioned marriage has been between a man and a women was because of general ignorance or dismissal of the fact that two men or two women may love each other with that same level of sexual intimacy. And that love is innate within them. Whether or not they raise children or what intimacy they have should be of no business to the state for the same reason the state should not have an interest in prohibiting a post menopausal woman from marrying.

Intimacy?  You seem to be assuming the opponents of SSM are basing their opposition upon a definition of marriage based on love.  The traditional marriage they espouse has a definition of marriage based on property.  Clearly men can only be owners and women can only be the owned.  This property based definition of marriage also explains of course why interracial marriage was such a bugaboo as well, tho we got over that sooner once marriage changed from being the sale of a dependent woman to a union of two equals.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Even if the court had done nothing the racial restrictions would have eventually have been abolished. It would have been better to do that than traumatize both races.

Separate but equal has been vilified over the years but it is a lot more nuanced than its critics let on.

The traditional marriage they espouse has a definition of marriage based on property.  Clearly men can only be owners and women can only be the owned.

Same-sex marriage is as bad as race mixing and women's rights!!!

Agreed.  They're all equally bad, but that's because none of them are bad.  I realize the selective quote you made of me could be taken the other way without its context.