Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 41

2 

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

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.”    The  Federalist  No. 
78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitaliza-
tion altered).

Although  the  policy  arguments  for  extending  marriage
to  same-sex  couples  may  be  compelling,  the  legal  argu-
ments  for  requiring  such  an  extension  are  not.    The  fun-
damental 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  ap-
proach  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  mar-
riage,  making  a  dramatic  social  change  that  much  more
difficult to accept.