I did not find the dissents compelling. True, from the strict constructionist point of view, the case is straightforward:
- Gay marriage is not explicitly enumerated in the constitution,
- The authors of the 14th amendment assumed marriage meant one woman-one man.
- The states can do what they want.
- I respectfully dissent.
Even if I disagree with strict constructivism, I could respect this point of view given two things. First, that they would not whine endlessly about it, and, oh my goodness, they do. Second, that they would at least admit there exist other legitimate ways of reading the constitution, and, oh my goodness, they do not.