Do you agree with the decision of Chief Justice Roberts?

The world moves forward.

Even the Conservative judges in the court realize that much, due to their own education.

Sadly, the average Con, lacks such education and thinks you can oppose the passing of time by brute force.

Being a creation of man and a compromise, necessarily so, of course it's flawed. Even the opening of the Preamble was considered a flaw by those selected to consider its adoption. Many believed the words, "we the people" was incorrectly applied and believed "we the states" was the proper term. Every state that voted to ratify the Constitution also submitted changes they would like to see made to it. Two states wouldn't ratify it without changes. If the Charter wasn't flawed, then how did the Republic become a democracy? Here's how. "We the people...". The term seems to imply a popular majority can make law that supersedes the Constitution merely because most people believe the law necessary and therefore "proper". If that were actually true, then a simple popular majority would have the power to amend the Constitution. They don't. Only a majority of states, and not a simple one, can amend the Constitution. The federal government cannot amend the Constitution. It cannot give itself new power or additional power, is forbidden to interlope in the realm of rights and has no authority to "name" them. The states are not immune to error either. The amendment process has served to add new flaws, like the 16th and 17th amendments. The Constitution was designed to place state governments as barriers to access to individuals by the federal government created by the states. When they ratified the 16th, state governments stepped aside and gave the federal government full access to individuals and with the 17th they surrendered their representation in the government they created essentially handing off the government to "we the people". I hold out hope that someday the states will take what they have learned about the flaws during 219 years of operation and correct them, all of them, even the newest flaws. Personally, I refuse to submit to the opinion a consolidated popular majority derived from a decidedly minor number of states has the power to decide for a majority of states in what's left of this Constitutional Republic. No adult, capable of functioning as one, possesses a right to live at the expense of another or demand some suffer the expense for the benefit of others. There is no moral defense for theft. Although flawed, that does not weaken my reverence for it because it contains the path to liberty, therefore I exercise my duty to be loyal to both it and its intent. I ask the same of the government created by it. **** I shall exert every faculty I possess in aiding to prevent the Constitution from being nullified, destroyed, or impaired; and even though I should see it fail, I will still, with a voice feeble, perhaps, but earnest as ever issued from human lips, and with extinguish, call on the people to come to its rescue. – Daniel Webster The only legal path available to the "people" to rescue liberty is through their state governments, the lawful guardians of the Constitution. When the “minority” of people convince the decidedly major number of state governments to alter or abolish the "form of government” that was unnecessarily, improperly and illegally established by consolidated popular will, the wisdom of the Founders, and the source of power in the Constitution will be fully known by everyone.

I would have to read the opinion to see if I agreed with it, and I don't have time right now.

As far as gay marriage is concerned, I don't see why the government is involved at all except for the legal protections part of it, which should just be called a Civil Union. Leave marriage to churches and anyone else who wants to sanction them. Churches can refuse to marry gay people or not for all I care.

i know it is not a decision for the states, cause that only divides, which is only the cry of of a neo-right, hate monger, the federal courts will deside this when they can look good doing it, they will let the fight go on for awhile , to please the republican cry babies, and their pretend , righteous behavior

DC is small and controled by feds... it is a federal district... congress controls that.. and dems control congress... and fed law is under supreme court... so its legal... right or wrong... now barney franks can marry ... and fornicate with freddie mac and fannie mae....

It does not really matter to me. I don't have a real dog in this fight, but I wonder how much time and money is being spent on fighting something that will inevitably become legal in all 50 states.

You still don't even understand what the decision was, any better than you did the first time that you asked this question today.

Yes, marriage is not a matter for federal courts.

No, because he is a right wing, prejudiced hoophobe

I don't care as long as they stay out of my pockets, and don't try to impose any of their ideologies on me.

Like Jehovah's Witnesses--believe what you want, just stay away from my door.