[ThirdFoundation]

The government (the Supreme Court in this case) wasn't speaking for everyone, they were merely protecting the rights of a certain segment of the population. It's an important distinction to make. There was no constitutional basis for denying same-sex marriage.

[rossdavidh]

True that, but that can be completely true, and yet it can be also true that having it imposed by the courts leads to a backlash, and an increase in anti-gay bias.

It is sort of like how people never like it when their candidate in an election loses, but if the courts intervene and disqualify their candidate, their resentment of the winner is greater. Regardless of whether the courts were right or not, the fact that a non-electorate authority made the decision, increases the dissatisfaction with the outcome.

[ThirdFoundation]

Good point, I guess the comment to which I responded could be read two different ways also.

No one likes to be forced to do anything, and any perception of unfairness could easily elicit a stronger response of resentment or resistance.

I personally think when it comes to protecting rights it may be warranted, but I definitely see how the situation you explained could also be true. It's a tough thing to balance.