360,605 all-time page views 1:19 pm
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling legalizing gay marriage throughout the US
split along familiar lines, with the nine-member court’s four most
conservative justices voting against a nationwide right to homosexual
unions.
Chief justice John Roberts joined justices
Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito in opposing the
majority’s opinion on the case brought by Ohio resident James
Obergefell, whose 2013 marriage to his now-deceased partner was not
recognized by the state.
Here are excerpts from the four dissenting opinions (pdf) the naysaying justices filed.
Chief justice John Roberts acting like Frank Pilleri of TV3
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.http://qz.com/438642/how-the-supreme-courts-conservatives-explained-their-votes-against-gay-marriage/
