Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 66

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

27 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it 
from  the  realm  of  democratic  decision.  There  will  be 
consequences to shutting down the political process on an
issue of such profound public significance.  Closing debate
tends to close minds.  People denied a voice are less likely
to  accept  the  ruling  of  a  court  on  an  issue  that  does  not 
seem  to  be  the  sort  of  thing  courts  usually  decide.    As  a 
thoughtful  commentator  observed  about  another  issue, 
“The political process was moving . . . , not swiftly enough
for  advocates  of  quick,  complete  change,  but  majoritarian 
institutions  were  listening  and  acting.  Heavy-handed
judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to
have  provoked,  not  resolved,  conflict.”    Ginsburg,  Some
Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. 
Wade,  63  N. C.  L. Rev.  375,  385–386  (1985)  (footnote
omitted).  Indeed,  however  heartened  the  proponents  of 
same-sex  marriage  might  be  on  this  day,  it  is  worth  ac-
knowledging  what  they  have  lost,  and  lost  forever:  the 
opportunity  to  win  the  true  acceptance  that  comes  from 
persuading  their  fellow  citizens  of  the  justice  of  their 
cause.  And  they  lose  this  just  when  the  winds  of  change
were freshening at their backs.

Federal  courts  are  blunt  instruments  when  it  comes  to 
creating  rights.    They  have  constitutional  power  only  to 
resolve  concrete  cases  or  controversies;  they  do  not  have
the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties
not  before  the  court  or  to  anticipate  problems  that  may
arise  from  the  exercise  of  a  new  right.    Today’s  decision,
for  example,  creates  serious  questions  about  religious 
liberty.  Many  good  and  decent  people  oppose  same-sex 
marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise
religion  is—unlike  the  right  imagined  by  the  majority—
actually spelled out in the Constitution.  Amdt. 1. 

Respect  for  sincere  religious  conviction  has  led  voters
and  legislators  in  every  State  that  has  adopted  same-sex 
marriage  democratically  to  include  accommodations  for