What changed in the piece of legislation to change the interpretation?

Congress can be slow to a problem... maybe because they know the Supreme court can clean it up for them?

I mean hell, that bailout got passed pretty quickly considering pretty much everyone in the government was against it.

Nothing whatsoever, the Supreme Court just admitted that the previous decision (about 40 years prior) was a bad one and essentially apologized for screwing it up so badly.  They said that they had flat out interpreted the statute differently than its plain meaning since they were trying to force the states into uniformity on their laws, which the states heavily resisted.  It just turned out so badly that they gave up and overruled the previous decision.

Once again, we elected the members of Congress, so we are as much to blame as they are.

America is based on bitching about something and then doing it anyways.  Haven't you learned that already :)

Yeah, but my point is congress can move fast when they want to.

The flip side of that though is that a statute can be repealed just as quickly as it can be passed. A court decision generally takes much longer to overturn. So that speed can come at a cost.

here's my take on this:

Marriage - Any Man may marry any Woman, and vica versa if those two choose to make that commitment.
This does not grant unequal rights based on sexual preference, a gay man has the same right to marry a woman as a straight man does. Just because he isn't interested is his own issue to deal with.

Marriage to me is religious. If you want to give homosexual couples a civil union that grants all the legal rights and privileges of a marriage, then that's okay with me, but it is not a marriage unless it uses the religious ceremony, and making the distinction is important to maintaining the separation of church and state.

Now as far as the religious end of things, you leave that the fuck alone. If a religion says that it recognizes a marriage between 2 men or 2 women, that's fine, but you're not going to find a legitimate Christian, Jewish, Catholic, or Islamic custom that will allow that.
If you try to force the issue, you deserve to be dragged out and hung on a steeple. You don't decide religion, you either follow it or you don't. If you want to say you're christian and get the christian ceremony, then you follow the basic doctrines of that religion, and if you don't follow those doctrines, then I hardly see why you should get the religious validation on the matter.

 The idea that it can be a choice only for some makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. Some people might be hardwires to play both sides of the fence, and some people might want to see what the fuss is all about I will grant you. The notion that it is only hardwired in some though is absolutely ludicrous.

 The opprtunity to keep marriage as a strictly religious idea went out the window many many years ago. You can elope and by-pass any possible religious ceremony but still end up being married. The concept is a legal one as well as a religious one in the United States. That means there should be no law discriminating against minorities that choose to marry different people. If you want to re-word the laws that specifiy marriage then go for it, but that seems like an up-hill battle to me.

But what about the gay Christian churches that perform gay Christian weddings for gay Christians?  Not all gays have to be atheists.  And the law doesn't force any religious person to do anything or perform anything or recognize anything at all.  It can't, and it won't.  Gay people can go to a gay church or to a court or do it themselves in their back yard.

What about me, I'm an atheist?  Do I need to get a civil union because G-d hates me too?

I suppose I should say that it's not marriage unless it's approved by a religious institute, though of course I just shortened that to the religious ceremony, since that's the most typical manner in which that approval is given.

And uphill or not, it's a battle that is going to be, and it's the safest way to do it. The way you seem to be going is "since they gave an inch, we should just take a mile" and that just isn't going to fly.

A) Like I said, legitimate, calling themselves gay christians is going to be pretty rough. If they want to form a breakoff sect then I guess that's okay, but there is going to be backlash from standard christians. I think this would stand a better chance at gaining acceptance if they didn't try to throw around the "christian" term.

B) Honestly, yes, if you are an aethiest, I can hardly see how you should expect a religious ceremony, or why you would even want one. Isn't the point that you don't believe in god? Taking part in a ceremony in which you ask for God's approval and blessing, when you don't believe in god is a farce.

C) God doesn't hate you cause you're an aethiest, but how can you ask god for a favor when you don't believe he exists? I'm gonna go to my nonexistent uncle and ask him to lend me $50?

So you're saying that ALL homosexuality or bi-sexuality is genetic/predetermined? Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? So, is wanting to band fat chicks hard-wired too? What about cougars? How about people with all sorts of crazy fetishes? Is the S&M couple down the street into that because of predetermined circumstances? After all, these also are sexual preferences and lifestyles. By your explanation, all of these are hard-wired into people, as opposed to a choice or natural free-will preference.