“By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency,” Justice Scalia said, “the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.”

Exactly 10 years ago, Justice Scalia issued a similar dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime. He predicted that the ruling would lead to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, and he turned out to be right.

The court’s four more conservative justices — Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito — issued three dissents between them in the case on the federal law. They differed in some of their rationales and predictions, but all agreed that the law, which passed with bipartisan support and which President Bill Clinton signed, was constitutional.

Chief Justice Roberts said that he “would not tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry,” and that “interests in uniformity and stability amply justified Congress’s decision” in 1996, which, “at that point, had been adopted by every state in our nation, and every nation in the world.”
Sandra Stier, center left, and Kristin Perry, center right, plaintiffs in the California case, spoke to reporters after the decisions by the Supreme Court were announced in Washington on Wednesday.
Christopher Gregory / The New York Times

Justice Scalia wrote that the majority had simplified a complex question that should be decided democratically and not by judges.

“In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us,” he wrote. “The truth is more complicated.”

Another defeat for all couples.


The state should have no say in marriage. It should be a personal or religious choice. This is true of all interpersonal relationships.

Quote from: Voro 'Cinotai on April 30, 2015, 12:36:06 AM

Quote from: Arm The Mob on April 30, 2015, 12:33:19 AM

Another defeat for all couples.


The state should have no say in marriage. It should be a personal or religious choice. This is true of all interpersonal relationships.

How?  By making it legal for people to marry those who they love in states where the Government practically outlaws it?

By treating it as an issue of government at all. Government has no more business regulating marriage than it does deciding who can or can't be married. By making the state a part of such a huge life decision, you are normalizing statist overreach.