CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting.
Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise neither force nor will but merely judgment.
Roberts is such a hypocrite, considering that only yesterday, he told us the Court had to try to guess what the writers of Obamacare meant to say.
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution is made for people of fundamentally differing views. Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
Accordingly, courts are not concerned with the wisdom or policy of legislation. Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own understanding of what freedom is and must become.
Suddenly, Roberts wants to be a Constitutionalist again? After yesterday???