The essential response from Kennedy et al. was two-fold:
1. Marriage is a Right because the due process and equal protection clauses were designed to be interpreted broadly as society came to "understand" liberty in new ways. I think this is actually pretty damn accurate -- I have no doubt that some of the founding fathers had slavery on their minds, even though at the time the amendments we're interpreted in that way.
2. Rights are not subject to the "vicissitudes" of public opinion -- the democratic process doesn't get to take away rights.
Roberts and Scalia mostly disagreed with (1), but there was very little substance to their argument. Read through the four justifications given by Kennedy. Roberts and Scalia doesn't respond to these. They just sort of complain about a slippery slope to tyranny. But this court is by far less activist than previous courts and we have yet to devolve into a dictatorship-by-SCOTUS. So I'm sceptical of the veracity of their slippery slope argument. It would have been more compelling if that had talked more about this specific case.
Roberts and Scalia also made some more practical arguments, e.g. that democratically selected policies are more robust protections because they can hash out the details. I mostly believe that's a false dichotomy because there's very little evidence that courts conferring Rights upon groups of people actually shuts down legislative action or debate on either side of the question. Look at abortion or civil rights. Ultimately, I find this argument extremely ahistorical and massively empirically denied.
(As an aside, I think Scalia's "o'weening pride will be our fall" thing was a pretty dickish thing to say, given the overloaded connotations associated with pride in this case.)
The essential response from Kennedy et al. was two-fold:
1. Marriage is a Right because the due process and equal protection clauses were designed to be interpreted broadly as society came to "understand" liberty in new ways. I think this is actually pretty damn accurate -- I have no doubt that some of the founding fathers had slavery on their minds, even though at the time the amendments we're interpreted in that way.
2. Rights are not subject to the "vicissitudes" of public opinion -- the democratic process doesn't get to take away rights.
Roberts and Scalia mostly disagreed with (1), but there was very little substance to their argument. Read through the four justifications given by Kennedy. Roberts and Scalia doesn't respond to these. They just sort of complain about a slippery slope to tyranny. But this court is by far less activist than previous courts and we have yet to devolve into a dictatorship-by-SCOTUS. So I'm sceptical of the veracity of their slippery slope argument. It would have been more compelling if that had talked more about this specific case.
Roberts and Scalia also made some more practical arguments, e.g. that democratically selected policies are more robust protections because they can hash out the details. I mostly believe that's a false dichotomy because there's very little evidence that courts conferring Rights upon groups of people actually shuts down legislative action or debate on either side of the question. Look at abortion or civil rights. Ultimately, I find this argument extremely ahistorical and massively empirically denied.
(As an aside, I think Scalia's "o'weening pride will be our fall" thing was a pretty dickish thing to say, given the overloaded connotations associated with pride in this case.)