We've Been Discriminating Against You for Two Millennia So You'll Have to Wait a Few More

Samuel Alito in '72. Was he one of the 70%
against interracial marriage then?

"Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new."—Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito

You've been discriminated against, lynched, murdered, beaten, vandalized, assaulted, forced to live in a closet, think you were a sinner, and going to hell for 2000 years while the Bible was telling people they could marry the virgin they raped or the widow of the man they killed in battle, so, yeah, you're just too "new" to give rights to.

And, of course, this wingnut bigot kept talking. Clarence Thomas is at least smart enough to keep his fool mouth shut.

But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution, which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we—we are not—we do not have the ability to see the future. On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?

I can see the early argument against interracial marriage .. "You want us to render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution, which is newer than the wheel..." I'm sure Alito would have been one of the great many who had a problem with the marriage of Frederick Douglass and Helen Pitts.

John Rogers pointed out, in 2005:

...when the Supreme Court struck down the bans against interracial marriage in 1968 through Virginia vs. Loving, SEVENTY-TWO PERCENT of Americans were against interracial marriage. As a matter of fact, approval of interracial marriage in the US didn't cross the positive threshold until -- sweet God -- 1991

Our modern Supreme Court, ladies and gentlemen, so far behind the times that they use the argument that they're behind the times to suggest we should all stay that way.