They did not manufacture a law that says gasy must be allowed to marry. They weighed the restrictive laws that had been passed by the states, and determined that the state laws overstepped the bounds of the constitution.
First, this isn't their business.
Second, the decision itself rests on spurious assumptions and out-and-out manufactured bs.
Roberts dissent was spot on:
The majority purports to identify four “principles andtraditions” in this Court’s due process precedents that support a fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry. Ante, at 12. In reality, however, the majority’s approach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that characterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45.
Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marrybecause it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy.
But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.
Yep....social engineering from the bench.
Then.....
Allowing unelected federal judges to select which unenumerated rights rank as “fundamental”—and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determination—raises obvious concerns about the judicial role.
And how right he is. Pulling these "fundamental rights" out from between their cheeks. Douglas was a pro.
His final words for you.....
If you are among the many Americans—of whateversexual 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.I respectfully dissent.
This describes you to a tee. You celbrate because the court sided with you. You think that makes it legitimate and "constitutional". Jokes on you. Oh, I can hear you whinning about Roberts right now. Save us the trouble so you can spend more time with your Ruth Bader Ginsburg blow up doll.
Another clear indication is that Biden puts an assclown on the court in the form of Jackson who is beholden to making **** up as she goes. Even her compatriots have had to break with her because of totally ignorant approach to constitutional law.
