Today’s marriage ruling had four separate dissenting opinions–a level of disagreement last seen in 2000 in the Bush v. Gore ruling. Everyone knew what to expect from Antonin Scalia, and he lived up (or down) to expectations. The more interesting dissent is from Chief Justice Roberts because it shows that he knows that he’s on the wrong side of history.
Roberts goes out of his way in his opinion to make it clear that he’s not opposed to marriage equality per se (although he spends so much time justifying the traditional definition of marriage that you have to wonder). His writing is studded with disclaimers recognizing the the impact of the majority decision. “Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration,” Roberts wrote.
But.
Roberts’ main objection is the legal reasoning behind the majority opinion. His preference was to let the issue play out through the ballot box instead of letting what he dismissively calls “five lawyers” to determine whether marriage is a right.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision,” Roberts said. “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.”
Fortunately, five other lawyers disagreed.
AtticusBennett
four justices cemented their permanent place on the wrong side of history. their legacy is now one of shame. oh well.
Cagnazzo82
I should not have the right to vote whether my two consenting adult neighbors have the right to marry.
My two consenting adult neighbors should not have the right to vote whether I can get married.
If this rationale was good enough to strike down bans on interracial marriage, it’s good enough to strike down bans on gay marriage.
The notion that the majority should get to vote at the ballot box on the rights of a minority (especially if those rights of the minority do not infringe in any way on the rights of the majority) is a thoroughly, thoroughly flawed concept/argument.
I don’t understand how people can keep making this ballot box argument with a straight face. Especially given this country’s history, which the good ‘justice’ should be more than well aware of.
Chris
I am amazed that, when he loses, Roberts calls his colleagues “five lawyers;” but when he wins, they’re the Supreme Court. You can’s have it both ways, Mr. Chief Justice.
There is a reason why these nine unelected judges are on the court; and it has to do with the balance of powers among the three branches of government. Let’s be clear (as well as queer) on this: the legislative has been abusing its powers with things like DOMA; the Executive has failed to act and, when it does, it has found itself voted down by Congress; and States have been complicit in, if not adding to, this abuse of power by the majority.
At some point, the court is supposed to step in and say “enough.” And finally today, in one small but important arena, they did so.
Cam
4 Justices will be remembered as bigots.
Bromancer7
It’s almost as if he’s never read the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, because it literally has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Daniel-Reader
So, he’ll be stepping down from the court until the people can vote on his replacement, right? Since there wasn’t a general vote of the people on who should hold his job. Otherwise, he’s just a hypocrite.
Celtic
Letting 5 lawyers decide? That is the courts job you SOB. You know that because you are the frackin Chief Justice.
David Red
He’s happily find a constitutional right for corporations to marry . . .
Arcamenel
Very disappointed in him.
Ladbrook
Roberts has always struck me as a mushy self-hating conservative, (unlike Scalia and Thomas, who are both proud homophobes who don’t care who knows it). It makes me wonder if he’s not a wee bit bisexual. None of which matters. We won, so suck my dick Tony Perkins… Just suck it.
1EqualityUSA
I don’t know how his lesbian niece could ever speak to this man again. How dare he say that our lives should be put up for a vote!
DarkZephyr
@Arcamenel: As am I. VERY disappointed. I expected so much more from him.
Avery Alvarez
He’s a complete idiot, and his idiot prose are nothing but empty rhetoric.
dvlaries
His is the only branch of government, the last resource which a minority can appeal to when it is being tyrannized by the majority, when that majority enacts laws and restrictions that inhibit and damage the civil rights of the minority, typically an unpopular one.
*
I do not believe Roberts doesn’t know and thoroughly understand that. I simply believe he voted in cowardice, and while that cowardice is more readily expected in Alito, Thomas and Scalia, the 6 to 3 to uphold the Affordable Care Act fostered 24 hours of hope that some sense of decency had awakened for Roberts.
Atomicrob
Its actually quite shameful, yet not surprising, the Chief Justice dissented. His opinion was a strange mix of platitudes and condescending remarks. He does not live in the same world as most of the citizens of this great country.
Bob LaBlah
It is now official. Their institutions, religion, have been taken over by SCOTUS and the sodomites, the ones whom for CENTURIES have been scorned, chased away and simply told in every possible way “your kind are not wanted”, have won. I know that is not the politically correct way to say it but that is what happened.
Well, as you march down the aisles hand in hand singing Ave Maria and stand there grinning from ear to ear with honey bunch by all means don’t get the impression that you did invaded these people’s kingdom and their won’t be consequences. Just wait. The only thing that has been done now is their having a cause to unite. And unite they will.
I am so glad I came along when all that was required is that you be gay and happy. To hell with having to have a legal spouse, kids and a house in the burbs. I, like many other older gays, never saw the need for marriage. Why fix what wasn’t broke? Why not just start your own church and set your own “god mandated rules” if theirs won’t accept you or amend their rules to accommodate you?
Sorry kids, but this was an invasion on the last piece of solace these people had. You aint seen the last of them yet, rest assured.
Tommy Parlon
Asshole
1EqualityUSA
Bob LaBlah, Even if nobody chose to marry, at least it is we who are making that decision for ourselves.
badtungsten
@Bob LaBlah: Troll
TomMc
Of course he – let alone the majority of the three others against – can’t concur:
_____________________________________________________
Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence:
– – –
Episcopalian/Anglican 32 57.1%
Congregationalist 13 23.2%
Presbyterian 12 21.4%
Quaker 2 3.6%
Unitarian or Universalist 2 3.6%
Catholic 1 1.8%
TOTAL 56 100%
Cagnazzo82
@David Red: I wish I could upvote your comment.
Anthony Most
So, would have voted opposed when it came to Loving v. Virginia?
Caoimhin Mikael Lycke
What do you expect, he bottoms out for the RCC.
David Head
Votes do not equal rights
GG
Dear Chief Justice Roberts,
If you are going to vote against something based not on the merits of the case but on a perceived notion of incorrect venue, you could just as easily have voted for it. But you didn’t do that. So go ahead and scream as loud as you want in your dissent that you are not against same-sex marriage, but we can see clearly through your attempted subterfuge.
By the way, if you really felt it was not in the court’s purview, to save you from casting a vote either way, a reputable judge would have recused himself.
You’re fooling no one.
Signed,
Everyone
1EqualityUSA
We must never let a Republican put another Justice on the Supreme Court.