Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 54.0

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

15 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

ing fundamental rights, ante, at 10–11, does not provide a 
meaningful  constraint  on  a  judge,  for  “what  he  is  really
likely to be ‘discovering,’ whether or not he is fully aware 
of it, are his own values,” J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust
44  (1980).  The  only  way  to  ensure  restraint  in  this  deli-
cate  enterprise  is  “continual  insistence  upon  respect  for 
the  teachings  of  history,  solid  recognition  of  the  basic
values  that  underlie our  society,  and  wise  appreciation  of 
the great roles [of] the doctrines of federalism and separa-
tion  of  powers.”  Griswold  v.  Connecticut,  381  U. S.  479, 
501 (1965) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment). 

B 
The  majority  acknowledges  none  of  this  doctrinal  back-
ground,  and  it  is  easy  to  see  why:  Its  aggressive  applica-
tion  of  substantive  due  process  breaks  sharply  with  dec-
ades  of  precedent  and  returns  the  Court  to  the 
unprincipled approach of Lochner. 

1 
The  majority’s  driving  themes  are  that  marriage  is
desirable and petitioners desire it.  The opinion describes
the “transcendent importance” of marriage and repeatedly
insists that petitioners do not seek to “demean,” “devalue,”
“denigrate,” or “disrespect” the institution.  Ante, at 3, 4, 6, 
28.  Nobody disputes those points.  Indeed, the compelling
personal  accounts  of  petitioners  and  others  like  them  are 
likely  a  primary  reason  why  many  Americans  have
changed  their  minds  about  whether  same-sex  couples 
should be allowed to marry.  As a matter of constitutional 
law,  however,  the  sincerity  of  petitioners’  wishes  is  not 
relevant. 

When  the  majority  turns  to  the  law,  it  relies  primarily
on precedents discussing the fundamental “right to marry.” 
Turner  v.  Safley,  482  U. S.  78,  95  (1987);  Zablocki, 
434 U. S., at 383; see Loving, 388 U. S., at 12.  These cases