This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judg- ment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate con- curring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.22 Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spiritu- ality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed under- standing of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the es- sence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may con- verge in the identification and definition of the right.”25 (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those free- doms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop- philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff con- tained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.

If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opin- ion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights thatallow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

It should come from the legislature, not a redefinition from the judicial branch.

which decision are you talking about here?

The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimen- sions, and so they entrusted to future generations a char- ter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a re- ceived legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

I'm all for gay marriage. I hope everyone gets the gay and gets married to each other.

But, this just feels like an end around to get it done. It should come from the legislature, not a redefinition from the judicial branch.

I'm all for gay marriage. I hope everyone gets the gay and gets married to each other.

But, this just feels like an end around to get it done. It should come from the legislature, not a redefinition from the judicial branch.

???

It did come from the legislature; the judiciary verified what the legislature said albeit in a less than ideal, but still obvious, way. I fail to see what your point is.

Scalia's prattle is nothing more than some asshole in a bar talking loudly to hear himself talk, not to make any salient point.

I'm happy with the result but the ruling felt a bit broad to me.

I guess I'm in the minority. Carry on.

Thanks to "A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers", black people don't have to deal with lawfully segregated schools and drinking fountains, for example.

Scalia's a prick and simply wrote a political screed, which isn't his job at all. All the court did was rule - as they have several times in the past in other various cases - in favor of the 'spirit of the law' ... nothing new was done, no precedent set.

The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.

"Christians" will now have to find some other issue with which to alienate everybody else with.

The Catholic church will probably be changing its view on gay marriage sooner than you think.

Scalia has previously said that he thinks that Plessy v. Ferguson should be the governing decision on segregation.

The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.

I just thought Scalia was funny. He went off the edge in response.

I see your point.

Much like Bill Maher, Scalia will either give you indisputable truth or wacky bullshit. These days I think we're getting more wacky bullshit from the Supreme Court justice.

Our hotel smelled like dead hooker vagina (before you ask I had gotten a detailed description from beardown)

I'm almost positive he said he would have joined John Marshall. His views aren't surprising. He doesn't believe that the constitution is a living document.

All the Catholic males opposed gay marriage.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.