The four dissenting opinions in this case are interesting. They deal mainly with the fact that, strictly, such pronouncements are not within the authority of the Supreme Court. They are correct, in a sense. But by that logic, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. V. U.S. (1964) should not be; by that logic, we should have waited for America to realize, of its own volition in 50 states, that allowing a business to deny a black man a hotel room is fundamentally wrong. But for the group wronged -- consider the same-sex couples facing the death of a spouse, the endless and expensive legal hurdles, or the millions of black Americans who couldn't sit at a lunch counter -- waiting for all 50 states to come to the right conclusion is cruel. No, the court has a moral obligation, where it can, to stand up for the people for whom justice for all would come too late. It's certainly not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. But the Founders were not infallible, were not seers of the future; it is just as incongruous to hold them responsible for their failures as it is to hold us responsible for our failures we have not yet realized.