Obergefell v Hodges

United States Supreme Court

In Obergefell v Hodges (June 26, 2015), five unelected and unaccountable lawyers on the U.S. Supreme Court decided (in a deeply divided 5-4 decision) that both the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, as well as its equal protection clause, required all states of the United States, to redefine marriage to include marriage between the same sex, despite that the people of over 30 states voted, through open ballot, or through their legislatures, to clarify that their constitutions retained the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

In an ironic twist, the people, through an open and democratic process, had reached the conclusion (granting state recognition of same sex marriage), on a state by state basis in at least 11 states as popular opinion for this position significantly shifted.  The Supreme Court short-circuited this process, and thereby took this decision out of the hands of the people - the democratic process.  Instead, in an imperious manner, they decided they knew better than the people, and, lacking patience for the democratic process, declared the Constitution imposed a new right hitherto unknown by anyone, much less supported by prior Court decisions (basic requirements for finding rights deserving protection under the short, brief, and broad language of the 14th Amendment).

Constitutional Balance of Powers
 both b/w the States and Federal Govt.s
as well as between the three branches of government

Under our Constitutional system of government, the legislature makes laws, the executive executes laws, and the judiciary interprets laws, a system which balances governmental powers.   For this reason, the federal judiciary is not subject to elections - justices appointed there enjoy a life-long term - since, at least theoretically, they mostly do not engage in policy making, at least not in the same manner as the Legislative branch does.  The Court violated this basic and fundamental constitutional structure when they basically, and mostly, engaged in a form of legislative policy making best left, under our Constitutional system, to the legislature - and especially under our federalism form of government, which leaves most legislative powers to the states, except those powers the states enumerated and entrusted to the federal government in the Constitution.

So, apart from whether you agree or disagree with same sex marriage recognized by this decision - hopefully you find it disturbing when the Supreme Court disregards the constitutional separation of powers by redefining marriage in the manner of a sort of super-legislature.  If not, consider whether you would be happy with a Supreme Court which imposes its raw will over the will of the people, apart from both any clear language in the Constitution, as well as apart from any longstanding right, to disavow laws passed by your state legislature (or by popular ballot) which you strongly support.

As one dissenting justice noted, this decision poses a danger to democracy.  It goes far beyond an interpretation of law, something our constitutional form of government allows, into the realm where the Supreme Court can simply make whatever laws suits their sense of what is right at the particular moment - which devolves our nation from a nation of laws to a nation of five lawyers with the absolute power to make whatever laws they deem appropriate, regardless of what the people express their will through legitimate forms.  Such a form of government more resembles the philosopher kings of Plato's Republic than a democracy which many of our citizen-soldiers valiantly fought for, and willingly sacrificed their lives to defend.