Finally, in Obergefell, Kennedy’s rationale is primarily focused on the scope of protection that opposite-sex couples have in contrast to same-sex couples. Kennedy shows that the application of fundamental liberties and their protections need to distributed in the same manner. He specifically notes that
“there is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to [the] principles, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable”.
Then, he explains that the right to marry is one of the most important fundamental liberties because it protects the most intimate relationship between two …show more content…
Beginning with Romer, Scalia attacks the majority opinion by saying the Court argued that the political minority is given preferential treatment and allows the minority to take over Colorado’s traditional sexual values. Additionally, he states that Amendment 2 was created to prevent the decline of sexual morality and is an appropriate means to legitimate state interest, which is constitutional. Scalia attacks the Court and concludes with “today’s opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to”. Scalia does not effectively defend his argument, because the majority wanted to provide Equal Protection to the minority group. Also, a state’s interest cannot be to hinder rights of a minority group and is a huge flaw in Scalia’s …show more content…
Additionally, Scalia believes that the Supreme Court asserted their supremacy and eludes to their power being the ultimate say in government, which he disagrees with. He believes the Court’s role in this decision was unjust and “the Court cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. In Obergefell, Scalia joins Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent which states that the Court played more of a legislative role rather than judicial role. The dissent is more focused on the role of the Court than the issue of the right to
“there is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to [the] principles, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable”.
Then, he explains that the right to marry is one of the most important fundamental liberties because it protects the most intimate relationship between two …show more content…
Beginning with Romer, Scalia attacks the majority opinion by saying the Court argued that the political minority is given preferential treatment and allows the minority to take over Colorado’s traditional sexual values. Additionally, he states that Amendment 2 was created to prevent the decline of sexual morality and is an appropriate means to legitimate state interest, which is constitutional. Scalia attacks the Court and concludes with “today’s opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to”. Scalia does not effectively defend his argument, because the majority wanted to provide Equal Protection to the minority group. Also, a state’s interest cannot be to hinder rights of a minority group and is a huge flaw in Scalia’s …show more content…
Additionally, Scalia believes that the Supreme Court asserted their supremacy and eludes to their power being the ultimate say in government, which he disagrees with. He believes the Court’s role in this decision was unjust and “the Court cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. In Obergefell, Scalia joins Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent which states that the Court played more of a legislative role rather than judicial role. The dissent is more focused on the role of the Court than the issue of the right to