Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Page Number: 102.0

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

7 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the
majority  attempts,  toward  the  end  of  its  opinion,  to  reas-
sure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights
of  conscience  will  be  protected.    Ante,  at  26–27.  We  will 
soon  see  whether  this  proves  to  be  true.    I  assume  that 
those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their 
thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat
those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots 
and  treated  as  such  by  governments,  employers,  and 
schools. 

The  system  of  federalism  established  by  our  Constitu-
tion provides a way for people with different beliefs to live 
together in a single nation.  If the issue of same-sex mar-
riage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely 
that  some  States  would  recognize  same-sex marriage  and 
others  would  not. 
It  is  also  possible  that  some  States
would  tie  recognition  to  protection  for  conscience  rights.
The  majority  today  makes  that  impossible.   By  imposing 
its  own  views  on  the  entire  country,  the  majority  facili-
tates  the  marginalization  of  the  many  Americans  who 
have  traditional  ideas.    Recalling  the  harsh  treatment  of 
gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turn- 
about is fair play.  But if that sentiment prevails, the Na- 
tion will experience bitter and lasting wounds.

Today’s  decision  will  also  have  a  fundamental  effect  on 
this  Court  and  its  ability  to  uphold  the  rule  of  law.    If  a 
bare  majority  of  Justices  can  invent  a  new  right  and  im-
pose  that  right  on  the  rest  of  the  country,  the  only  real 
limit  on  what  future  majorities  will  be  able  to  do  is  their
own sense of what those with political power and cultural
influence  are  willing  to  tolerate.    Even  enthusiastic  sup-
porters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope
of the power that today’s majority claims. 

Today’s  decision  shows  that  decades  of  attempts  to 
restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed.  A 
lesson  that  some  will  take  from  today’s  decision  is  that