Once the advocates of same-sex marriage came up with the term "marriage equality," and once the media welcomed the phrase, the game was over. You're going to see a lot more movements adopt that terminology. Immigration equality. Water equality. Health-care equality. You probably won't see assault-rifle equality.
I was never an advocate or an opponent on the issue. I was strongly in favor of equal legal rights for same-sex couples, but I did wish that someone would come up with a term that made a polite distinction between same-sex marriage and the old-fashioned kind. So my opinion was, as usual, muddled. I'm fine with the outcome.
I'm not particularly fine with the process. I have a states'-rights streak, so I think marriage is a matter of state law. I have an originalist streak, so I note that the nation's founders never could have guessed that marriage equality, if you will, was buried somewhere in the constitution that they wrote. This was not really a legal decision; it was a social decision that amounted to an amendment of the constitution. It wasn't the first, and it won't be the last. My legalistic streak is offended that we engineered this social change at a time when around 60 percent of the citizenry agreed with it. It takes more votes—and more process—than that to amend the constitution.
Many have noted the slippery slope of marriage that lies ahead. I also note the danger of setting a precedent to the effect that the Supreme Court can socially engineer the constitution when a majority of the public is on their side.