"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.
"Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
"If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual 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."
My perception (and mine only) is that the heart of this ruling is not really about equal protection under the law (as if one should be protected from the economic shortcomings of being single and cohabiting), but rather that differences over convictions about the morality of an act must not be allowed to interfere with how a modern secular civil society operates.
The Libertarian approach has long been this: if interactions between citizens are freely undertaken, are without fraud, and do harm neither to persons or property, then the State should have no interest in regulating them.
But, the State has inserted itself into the institution of marriage for hundreds of years. What I worry about now is that dissent will be repressed, and the simple voicing of disagreement will become a "hate crime" such that public debate on the subject, the free and peaceful exchange of views, becomes regulated, too. This is because "The progressive winners in this culture war want to punish their opponents. They don’t want comity, they want revenge."
For those organizations which intend to exercise their moral convictions in opposition to the now settled civil view of this issue, I urge this: wean yourselves off favorable tax treatment by the government. You will have to choose between tax exempt status and your moral convictions. It's not a question of if, it's a question of when.
To me, this is yet another reason that The State should not define marriage at all; it no longer has any compelling interest to declare what marriage is or is not. This is not Puritan New England where church membership and citizenship were synonymous.
We can set aside this public policy debate now, finally, because the Supreme Court has rendered public policy debate moot. But it's still a debate that should never have gotten to this point. When government rules upon the legitimacy of our moral convictions (religious or otherwise), it is time to remove the goverment from that position of authority altogether. The State may have an interest in enforcing private legal contractual partnerships made between free citizens, but should not have an interest in enforcing any matters of conscience.
If we do not change The State to one less concerned with telling its citizens what moral convictions are allowed and which are not, then soon we will find ourselves back in the days before the Emperor Constantine, when those who disagreed with the State were not only vilified and marginalized, but were urged by St. Paul to "live quietly" and "give no excuse for offense", lest they be punished. Maybe it's about time that The State treats The Church as an enemy, the way it used to. Then what Jesus said may mean something today: "if you would save your life, you must lose it."
