It's more than a religious tradition. Marriage is a complicated governmental process that sets up property, personal and monetary obligations, backed up by law. If the government decided that certain Americans were blocked from accessing these laws, then we’ve got a problem with equal protection.
The majority held that state same-sex marriage bans are a violation of both the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause.
The conservative Justices pretzel logic never got that concept, and wanted to continue to treat gay Americans differently:
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest, preserving the traditional definition of marriage.
“Governmental interest” doesn't include equal protection? I’m sensing a massive amount of BS.
I’m bringing this up again because in a recent article featuring Justice Scalia’s crazy rants against the decision, he never even mentioned “equal protection.” In fact he spouted the same talking points as tea party flame thrower Sen. Ted Cruz (ironically, Cruz served as a law clerk to William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States in 1996), arguing the justices are just a bunch of unelected lawyers telling us all what to do. I have deeper, more thoughtful conversations with my conservative friend in Milwaukee.
Here are the low-lights from conservative activist Justice Scalia. What is this guy doing on the bench?
At a Tuesday speech at Rhodes College the justice blasted the decision, calling it the "furthest imaginable extension of the Supreme Court doing whatever it wants" … "threat to democracy" … “Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast. Saying that the Constitution requires that practice, which is contrary to the religious beliefs of many of our citizens. I don't know how you can get more extreme than that. I worry about a court that's headed in that direction. Do you really want your judges to rewrite the Constitution?"
He bemoaned that the court was made up of no more than "lawyers" who are "terribly unrepresentative of our country. What is it that I learned at Harvard Law School that makes me peculiarly qualified to determine such profound moral and ethical questions as whether there should be a right to abortion, whether there should be same-sex marriage, whether there should be a right to suicide? It has nothing to do with the law. Even Yale Law School doesn't teach that stuff."