Having read the dissents, most of them come down to those justices being strict Constitutionalists. Roberts and Thomas dissented because they believe the court should have nothing to do with ruling on marriage in any case whatsoever, since it isn’t a right mentioned in the Constitution. In his case, Roberts went to great pains to point out that he wasn’t dissenting because he wants to deny anyone their rights, but because he feels that marriage is a legislative decision, not a judicial one. Thomas whines a lot about how this would offend the Framers and destroy religious liberty (?).
Scalia goes apeshit bonkers, calling the court a “putsch”, and saying that the opinion was so badly written that if he’d joined it he’d have to “put his head into a bag” because it amounts to something you’d find in a fortune cookie.
Absolutely loving the nutter meltdown happening over at Free Republic. A common refrain is the apoplectic rage against the traitor Roberts and how a mysterious sky deity should have mercy on us…
Homofascist Gay Gestapo will take away OUR marriages next
And another:
Always the queer loving Kennedy who saves the day for the fags.
I am ashamed to call myself an American.
The cognitive dissonance is staggering:
I can’t understand why homosexual couples can’t just get married by a Justice of the Peace without going into all that “sodomy is sinful, but we’ll ruin you if you refuse to marry us” nonsense. There are legal ways for people in love to get married without encroaching on anyone else’s morals and religious beliefs.
Exactly, I don’t agree with their position, but I appreciate that it’s pretty clearheadedly articulated by Roberts. His closing paragraph was pretty classy, all things considered:
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
The second is that even if this decision doesn’t affect you directly it still affects you because it affects people you care about. It doesn’t affect you to the same degree that it affects them but, because you care about them, what harms them also hurts you and what makes them happy also makes you happy.
These two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. In fact they seem to go together.
I just messaged my one gay friend “congrats!”. I only have like 2 or 3 friends so having one gay one is like being able to say “I have LOTS of gay friends”. But I have to be honest - I think I’m just as happy for the middle finger hovering in front of the face of every bigot in the country right now. SUCK IT, fundie breeders!
God I am gonna sound like a jerk, but then redeem myself (I think)…
I have sympathy for the concept of not ruling on constructs that aren’t authorized legislatively by the federal government. In fact I believe that should be the defacto stance.
However in this case…
Contracts were deemed void in certain circumstances based solely on the class of the person. So I tend to agree this isn’t a constitutional issue, but purely a federal-trumps-states issue.
It seems a straightforward 14th amendment issue to me. The constitution doesn’t say that the federal government can legislate about marriage. But the constitution does say that neither the federal nor state governments are can legally discriminate in this way. Some states could abolish all their marriage laws, like some jurisdictions did abolish all their public schools after Brown…
as a gay (and married) guy, whose marriage is now recognized across the country, i can’t explain it other than to say that you recognize that it’s historic, a once-in-a-lifetime thing, and it’s a decision made for the betterment of us as a country. love wins, yay!
I agree 100%. This is a very clear case of the two different types of Justices warring. The dissenters are all Constitutionalists who judge laws by the actual written words of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The majority opinion was written by justices who prefer to interpret the intent of those words and how they apply to the state of America in 2015. So as you say, I definitely see why the dissenters dissented… but holy fuck am I glad the majority decided to rule as they did.
I sincerely doubt we’ll see anyone bombing wedding chapels. Then again opponents of same-sex marriage undermine their own arguments every time they open their mouths. I hope they’re not stupid enough to further harm their cause by resorting to violence, but it was a pretty stupid decision to make this fight in the first place.
