(July 21, 2015 at 4:33 pm)Cato Wrote:(July 21, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Anima Wrote: Petitioners’ “fundamental right” claim falls into the most sensitive category of constitutional adjudication. Petitioners do not contend that their States’ marriage laws violate an enumerated constitutional right, such as the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. There is, after all, no “Companionship and Understanding” or “Nobility and Dignity” Clause in the Constitution. See ante, at 3, 14. They argue instead that the laws violate a right implied by the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that “liberty” may not be deprived without “due process of law.”
This is the blue in the face part. You're just going to have to get over it, the decision won't change.
As far as enumeration, remember that there was a loud camp that argued against a bill of rights simply because they thought that if certain rights were enumerated that some would interpret this as limiting rights to just those enumerated. I think you're guilty of this here.
Now if the petitioners had lost. Would you get over it because the decision would not change? No? Do you suppose you would say the law made a mistake (which based on precedence it would not have, where as it has in this case). Do you think you would try again to get the ruling you thought was right? Do you think those who are opposed to this ruling are that different than you?
