Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 76

8 

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

profoundly  incoherent.    “The  nature  of  marriage  is  that,
through  its  enduring  bond,  two  persons  together  can  find
other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spiritu-
ality.”23   (Really?  Who  ever  thought  that  intimacy  and
spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms?  And if 
intimacy  is,  one  would  think  Freedom  of  Intimacy  is 
abridged  rather  than  expanded  by  marriage.  Ask  the 
nearest hippie.  Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but 
anyone  in  a  long-lasting  marriage  will  attest  that  that
happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can
prudently  say.)    Rights,  we  are  told,  can  “rise  . . .  from  a
better  informed  understanding  of  how  constitutional 
imperatives  define  a  liberty  that  remains  urgent  in  our 
own  era.”24   (Huh?  How  can  a  better  informed  under-
standing of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that
means]  define  [whatever  that  means]  an  urgent  liberty 
[never mind], give birth to a right?)  And we are told that, 
“[i]n  any  particular  case,”  either  the  Equal  Protection  or 
Due  Process  Clause  “may  be  thought  to  capture  the  es-
sence  of  [a]  right  in  a  more  accurate  and  comprehensive 
way,”  than  the  other,  “even  as  the  two  Clauses  may  con-
verge  in  the  identification  and  definition  of  the  right.”25 
(What say?  What possible “essence” does substantive due
process  “capture”  in  an  “accurate  and  comprehensive 
way”?    It  stands  for  nothing  whatever,  except  those  free-
doms  and  entitlements  that  this  Court  really  likes.  And 
the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies 
nothing  except  a  difference  in  treatment  that  this  Court 

—————— 

allow  persons,  within  a  lawful  realm,  to  define  and  express  their 
identity,”  I  would  hide  my  head  in  a  bag.    The  Supreme  Court  of  the
United  States  has  descended  from  the  disciplined  legal  reasoning  of
John  Marshall  and  Joseph  Story  to  the  mystical  aphorisms  of  the 
fortune cookie. 
23 Ante, at 13. 
24 Ante, at 19. 
25 Ibid.