It's been pretty clear that every single Supreme Court (and most higher courts) has ruled that the ban on gay marriage is a violation of the Constitution.

I don't see why this is being appealed.

Of all places... in Texas, even... that is unexpected...

It's not sad that it's being appealed. Anything can be appealed. Just the appeal going through is unlikely unless there was a breach of procedure or law during the proceedings, that would make it invalidated.

People can do what they want, and will. I just think it is a sad state of affairs that we as a culture are so poorly defined. I know I'm in a minority view here, but I see this as moral relativism, social engineering, and definition redefining.

I do not remember the name of the short story, but it is one I read in Jr. High... I think. It is about a man who was watching TV. On was a show with dancing ballerinas. One of the ballerinas was a bit overweight and clumsy. The other one was trim and graceful.

As he watched he saw that the thin ballerina was somehow hindered (heavy shoes or restricting clothes or something of the like) and could not dance to her potential. He started to long to see her dance unencumbered and how beautiful it would be. In contrast he realized just how poorly the other danced.

He tried to focus on this line of thought. Why would they do this? Why would they restrict her? His mind wanted to flee from these thoughts for some reason,but he forced himself to focus. As he did he realized that it was not allowed for one to have something the other did not. It was not allowed for one to excel. It was not allowed to be different. But most of all, it was not allowed to realize that truth.

As he realized the truth of what was happening a pain began to grow in his head. The pain grew until it wiped out any hope of thinking his subversive thoughts. Because as he struggled against the pain he remembered that he was once a brilliant man. A man who was a scientist, a man of higher learning.

And just as he remembered that "they" had placed the device in his brain that caused the horrible pain, the pain became too much and he changed the channel.

I realize the original intent of that story was probably and anti-communism message, but I see some parallels. We have thought police. If you don't agree with gay rights to marry you are equated to being a racist who thinks that black people should still be slaves.

Black people were always people. It was wrong of white people to redefine black people as less than human and abuse them as slaves. When that ended with the Emancipation Proclamation Lincoln recognized the humanity of black people. He did not redefine them as human.

I am not saying that gays are not human. They are. I am saying that allowing gay marriage is a redefining, not a reestablishing. And it seems to me that it won't be long till I am not allowed to think that.

Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron

Just as allowing women to be seen as equal to men in the eyes of the law, or "coloured" as equal to whites was redefinition, not reestablishment.

You'll always be allowed to think as you please, just as people are allowed to think that women are intellectually inferior to men and that whites are a superior race, but you just may not be legally able to act upon those thoughts.

Laws should never take rights away from a specific group of people.

Ever.

Don't care what you think, won't try to stop you from doing so, will fight for your right to think and say it, but laws that take a right away from ONE person while granting it to ANOTHER, on ANY basis, are bulls**t.