Quote:That was already going on the only thing this ruling changed is the precedent that he state dictates whom you can enter a union with. If anything religious folk should be weary of the state attempting to regulate a religious or private union. Just because it's legal doesn't mean people that disagree with have to accept it or recognize it. If you give the state the power to dictate who you can marry that's more dangerous then anything.

 

I would put it differently.   What the ruling changed is that the state cannot dictate whom you can enter a union with.   In that way, it's not marriage regulation, it's marriage deregulation.  

 

Prior to the ruling, wasn't marriage regulated more than it is after the ruling?   Rather than "giving the states the power to dictate who you can marry," it's taking away some of the state's power to dictate whom you can marry.  

 

Before, the states could say that gays could not marry.    They regulated marriage in that way.   Now they cannot say that.   Is that not DE-regulation?    Isn't a regulation a restriction?   When you remove a restriction (gays cannot marry) is that not deregulation?  

---