Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 42

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

3 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

The  majority’s  decision  is  an  act  of  will,  not  legal  judg-
ment.  The right it announces has no basis in the Consti-
tution  or  this  Court’s  precedent.  The  majority  expressly 
disclaims  judicial  “caution”  and  omits  even  a  pretense  of 
humility,  openly  relying  on  its  desire  to  remake  society 
according  to  its  own  “new  insight”  into  the  “nature  of 
injustice.”  Ante,  at  11,  23.  As  a  result,  the  Court  invali-
dates the marriage laws of more than half the States and 
orders  the  transformation  of  a  social  institution  that  has 
formed  the  basis  of  human  society  for  millennia,  for  the 
Kalahari  Bushmen  and  the  Han  Chinese,  the  Carthagin- 
ians and the Aztecs.  Just who do we think we are? 

It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own prefer-
ences with the requirements of the law.  But as this Court 
has  been  reminded  throughout  our  history,  the  Constitu-
tion “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” 
Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., 
dissenting).  Accordingly,  “courts  are  not  concerned  with
the wisdom or policy of legislation.”  Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,
dissenting).  The  majority  today  neglects  that  restrained 
conception  of  the  judicial  role.    It  seizes  for  itself  a  ques-
tion the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when 
the  people  are  engaged  in  a  vibrant  debate  on  that  ques-
tion.  And  it  answers  that  question  based  not  on  neutral
principles  of  constitutional  law,  but  on  its  own  “under-
standing  of  what  freedom  is  and  must  become.”    Ante,  at 
19.  I have no choice but to dissent. 

Understand  well  what  this  dissent  is  about:  It  is  not 
about  whether,  in  my  judgment,  the  institution  of  mar-
riage should be changed to include same-sex couples.  It is 
instead  about  whether,  in  our  democratic  republic,  that 
decision  should  rest  with  the  people  acting  through  their
elected  representatives,  or  with  five  lawyers  who  happen 
to  hold  commissions  authorizing  them  to  resolve  legal
disputes  according  to  law.  The  Constitution  leaves  no 
doubt about the answer.