Some brief thoughts on some of the comments:
As to marriage "rights" between ANY two consenting adults who happen to be related to each other, this issue is currently regulated by state laws. Some states prohibit cousins of certain consanguinity from marrying, others don't. There are varying levels of consanguinity that are prohibited for marriage under state law.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx
(Though
@maparker specifically avoids the incest issue with marriage between relatives, I do think incest is where a really indepth look at the issue has to go; here are two articles about that issue:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=442520 (this one is good, too, because it makes the point about standing and public support making abolishment of laws and/or establishment of a constitutional right to incest unlikely).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/23/adult-incest-and-the-law/ )
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-children-of-1st-cousins.html )
Essentially, either marriage between relatives, or the other common slippery slope argument raised, polygamy, is not going to happen. A smarter lawyer than me, Prof. Eugene Volokh, has already covered the topic:
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/marriage.pdf (Prof. Volokh covered it in 40 pages....I am giving it a paragraph or two; if you get through it all, you will see the persuasive points he makes, which I generally agree with).
Though this may sound like reductive reasoning (especially as to the legal arguments), the main point is that there is no significant support for a Constitutional-based rule extending the right to marriage for closely related folks (similar to the incest issue, referenced above). There are a lot of procedural hurdles that would have to be crossed- which never would- in order to get a challenge to the denial of the "right" to marry for related folks before the Supreme Court. There are standing issues- you would need a plaintiff (or plaintiffs) to file cases in District Court- I can't imagine that there would ever be many willing to do so. And, unlike with gay folks, there is not going to be lawyers or law firms willing to take up the battle pro-bono. So, you would essentially need to have two someones who want to get married, but are closely related, actually try to get married, be denied, and then have the money to spend on costly and lengthy litigation in the District Court, then in the Circuit Court, and they would lose at every step. Then, they would have to pay for trying to get a grant of certiorari which would be denied. For very practical reasons- outside of the legal issues- this is just not going to happen (certainly, the cost in litigation- which they would lose- would trump any benefits they might gain by marrying....and at least as far as estate purposes go, a good Trusts and Estates attorney would be able to accomplish many goals much cheaper).
As to folks who object to gay marriage or homosexuality generally, they will not and cannot lose their "First Amendment Rights." Now, some may debate this and- like anything- definitions matter. But, as lawyers generally understand the issues, it is not the case that people are going to be forced to believe in something, state something or associate with someone that they don't want to.
Hold on a minute, some might say- what about hate speech? That concept has stripped some people of their First Amendment rights! Despite popular misunderstanding, there is no "Hate Speech" exception to the First Amendment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/
(I want to be careful about creating a straw man argument here- or at least acknowledge that is what I may have done).
As to people labeling/disliking/criticising folks who have different beliefs, yes that can and does happen- but, that is not a First Amendment issue. Social opinion and mores change. I would hope that people who are on opposite sides of issue would show everyone the same respect and courtesy that they want for themselves, their friends and families. Truth is, though, that folks have often fallen short of this mark.
Recall, the main point in my posting this thread in the first place was to alert folks that there are likely going to be issues with military and veterans benefits that will be impacted by this ruling. (It sure wasn't to break the news to folks- unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that this site is a primary news source for people and cable tv, newspapers and radio are where I am sure most folks learned of the ruling).
