And yet the idea of a Constitutional right to marriage still gives me pause. Constitution can, indisputably, be based upon factually wrong assumptions about the nature of the world. Even if it can be established empirically that a given prejudice is wrong and motivated by animus, and even if you can get near universal agreement on this point, that does not necessarily imply that it would be unconstitutional to have a law based on that prejudice. But at the same time, modern Equal Protection and Due Process clause jurisprudence requires that judges make factual findings about sociological and philosophical facts, and it requires that judges use those factual findings to dictate whether or not a given governmental activity is constitutionally permissible or impermissible. And areas of the law involving topics where legislators are likely to be factually incorrect, because their biases are likely to lead them to a false conclusion, are precisely the areas of the law where judges are empowered to give greater deference to their factual beliefs than to the will of the legislative branch.
Antonin Scalia routinely ruled against gay rights. Those opinions explain his philosophy.
The Impact of the Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Decision | BU Today | Boston University
Recently married couples leaving the City Hall in Seattle on the first day of same-sex marriage in Washington state after enactment of Washington Referendum Same-sex marriage, or gay marriage, has been defined as the legal unification of two people who are of the same biological gender. The debate of whether or not to legally recognize such marriages remains, taking on civil rights, moral, political, and social arguments. When discussing same-sex marriage, the topic of the actual definition of marriage often comes up first. One hundred years ago in the United States, marriage was basically defined as a legally recognized relationship between one man and one woman. It came with certain social expectations, such as having children.
Alabama Chief Justice Moore: Gay marriage 'not in accordance with Constitution'
Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex. My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. Bush administrations, challenge the "traditional" definition of marriage and press for an "activist" interpretation of the Constitution to create another "new" constitutional right?
North Carolina Amendment 1 often referred to as simply Amendment 1 was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in North Carolina that until overruled in federal court amended the Constitution of North Carolina to prohibit the state from recognizing or performing same-sex marriages or civil unions. The amendment did not prohibit domestic partnership agreements, but defined male—female marriage as "the only domestic legal union" considered valid or recognized in the state. State law had already defined marriage as being between a man and a woman prior to its passage. Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.