Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 65.0

26 

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

solved  by  them,  the  federal  judiciary  may  press  a  buzzer
and  take  its  turn  at  fashioning  a  solution.”  Rehnquist,
The Notion of a Living Constitution, 54 Texas L. Rev. 693,
700 (1976).  As a plurality of this Court explained just last
year,  “It  is  demeaning  to  the  democratic  process  to  pre-
sume  that  voters  are  not  capable  of  deciding  an  issue  of 
this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds.”  Schuette 
v.  BAMN,  572  U. S.  ___,  ___  –___  (2014)  (slip  op.,  at  16– 
17).

The  Court’s  accumulation  of  power  does  not  occur  in  a 
vacuum.  It comes at the expense of the people.  And they 
know  it.    Here  and  abroad,  people  are  in  the  midst  of  a 
serious and thoughtful public debate on the issue of same-
sex marriage.  They see voters carefully considering same-
sex  marriage,  casting  ballots  in  favor  or  opposed,  and
sometimes changing their minds.  They see political lead-
ers  similarly  reexamining  their  positions,  and  either  re-
versing  course  or  explaining  adherence  to  old  convictions
confirmed  anew.  They  see  governments  and  businesses
modifying  policies  and  practices  with  respect  to  same-sex 
couples,  and  participating  actively  in  the  civic  discourse. 
They  see  countries  overseas  democratically  accepting
profound  social  change,  or  declining  to  do  so.  This  delib-
erative  process  is  making  people  take  seriously  questions 
that they may not have even regarded as questions before. 
When decisions are reached through democratic means,
some  people  will  inevitably  be  disappointed  with  the  re-
sults.  But those whose views do not prevail at least know
that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the
tradition  of  our  political  culture—reconciled  to  the  result
of a fair and honest debate.  In addition, they can gear up
to raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the
winning  side  to  think  again.  “That  is  exactly  how  our
system  of  government  is  supposed  to  work.”    Post,  at  2–3 
(SCALIA, J., dissenting).

But today the Court puts a stop to all that.  By deciding