Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 94.0

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

17 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

and  “endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  unalienable
Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all
humans  are  created  in  the  image  of  God  and  therefore  of
inherent worth.  That vision is the foundation upon which
this Nation was built. 

The  corollary  of  that  principle  is  that  human  dignity
cannot be taken away by the government.  Slaves did not 
lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) 
because  the  government  allowed  them  to  be  enslaved.
Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity
because the government confined them.  And those denied 
governmental  benefits  certainly  do  not  lose  their  dignity
because  the  government  denies  them  those  benefits.    The 
government  cannot  bestow  dignity,  and  it  cannot  take  it 
away.

The  majority’s  musings  are  thus  deeply  misguided,  but
at least those musings can have no effect on the dignity of 
the  persons  the  majority  demeans.    Its  mischaracteriza-
tion  of  the  arguments  presented  by  the  States  and  their 
amici  can  have  no  effect  on  the  dignity  of  those  litigants. 
Its rejection of laws preserving the traditional definition of 
marriage  can  have  no  effect  on  the  dignity  of  the  people 
who  voted  for  them.    Its  invalidation  of  those  laws  can 
have no effect on the dignity of the people who continue to
adhere  to  the  traditional  definition  of  marriage.    And  its 
disdain for the understandings of liberty and dignity upon
which  this  Nation  was  founded  can  have  no  effect  on  the 
dignity of Americans who continue to believe in them. 

* 

* 

* 
Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence
before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, 
not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded
from—not  provided  by—the  State.    Today’s  decision  casts 
that truth aside.  In its haste to reach a desired result, the 
majority  misapplies  a  clause  focused  on  “due  process”  to
afford  substantive  rights,  disregards  the  most  plausible