[chralieboy]

The opinion goes into strenuous detail on the history of marriage cases before the court. This decision was not tearing down "what is marriage?", but pivoted (for Justice Kennedy, who was the deciding vote and wrote the majority opinion) on providing equal dignity. In essence, they found that the core aspects of marriage were upheld in gay marriages and as such they were due equal protection.

Your question — whose dignity falls under the scope of consideration — is the tricky one here. This is malleable and in the US Constitution is reinterpreted as views change. The majority's view is that, as we have seen states experiment with gay marriage and civil unions, we have found the arguments against them to be untenable. We've never defined marriage as being about procreation (e.g. if a man and a post-menopausal woman want to marry that's never been an issue) and we hold it as a form of social cohesion (which applies in LBGT unions, as seen in state who have allowed them.)

Why not siblings? This has a genetic argument against it that was not addressed here. Why not 12 year olds? We don't see their union as a part of the social construct. Again, this decision isn't about tearing down the definition of marriage. It upholds the definition of marriage and says that it applies to same sex couples.

[humanrebar]

> This is malleable and in the US Constitution is reinterpreted as views change.

This is the rub. What is the point of writing down laws and constitutions if the words don't stay put? If their meanings are ephemeral and open to interpretation, we are governed by men (executives, bureaucrats, judges, prosecutors, police) and not by laws.

There are states out there that make no pretension and are ruled by fiat. The U.S., in contrast, is supposed to be a nation of laws. The laws being checks against individuals and special interests. The legitimacy of the U.S. hinges on it sticking to the rules of governance that were set in place and upheld over the years.

[XorNot]

Guess you oppose all those constitutional amendments then too?

The Bill of Rights even expressly notes that the rights enumerated do not cover all rights and cannot be expected to cover all rights, and that those rights not enumerated are not meant to somehow be lesser -

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[chrishynes]

Exactly the opposite. Amendments are the correct way to change the Constitution.

Randomly deciding, "oh, we'll just reinterpret the existing language to mean something totally different, and is cool because times have changed..." is a totally different ballgame.

That sort of thinking violates the legitimacy of our legal system at the basest level. If words in a law, or in the Constitution don't mean anything and meanings can be changed on a whim, there is no solid ground for anything.

[JoeAltmaier]

Except this is the norm. Is electronic communications protected? Freedom of the Press cover that? Who controls currency vs coin? What about bitcoin? Interpretation is going on all the time.

[chrishynes]

There's nothing wrong with interpretation, as long as that interpretation doesn't change the original intent. Obviously freedom of the press covers communications in general, already covered several types of communication originally, and would cover electronic communications and any other form of communication we invent.

If you want to change the original intent, though, that's an amendment. That's why prohibition required an amendment, for example. The court couldn't (as they disingenuously do today) just say, "well, over here the Constitution says that the feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce. So sure, prohibition is fine because commerce."

[JoeAltmaier]

That's a stretch by any interpretation. Its obvious to me that an electronic amendment is overdue. Can we come up with a test for 'amendment required'? It can't be about what's 'obvious' to someone.

[humanrebar]

Constitutional amendments are certainly constitutional.

The judicial system discovering new rights is not.

And that clause of the Constitution certainly was not used when the question of mandatory health insurance came before the court. I would actually like that policy if it were consistently applied. Instead it is applied when it is the means to meet the desired ends. And that means we are a nation ruled by men, not by laws.