[rayiner]

I think looking at your gay marriage example exemplifies why your thinking is wrong.

Your interpretation reads the phrase "establishment of" completely out of the text. A perfectly reasonable interpretation of that text is that Congress isn't allowed to establish a national religion. And using your logic, we should fire all the judges who have interpreted the establishment clause to prohibit more than that.

Similarly, there is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the 4th amendment that looks at the things protected in the enumerated list (person, house, papers, and effects) and concludes that it only prevents what would be a trespass to property if not done by the government. Judges who read in a "right to privacy" from that, according to your view, should be fired.

In fact, the whole "right to privacy" hiding in the "penumbras" of the Constitution can be discarded, and the judges who read that in should be fired too.

Alternatively, I think your problem is not with judges who don't uphold the Constitution, but rather your interpretation of it.

[cmdrfred]

The Supreme Court found this in Everson Vs. Board Of Education: “The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

'aid all religions' is the key point and is consistent with my reading. By applying that same logic you are forced to come to the conclusion that by having a government sanctioned marriage, and by giving tax benefits among others with said marriage. You are aiding a religion and thus it is unconstitutional.

[rayiner]

The only thing that the text of the Constitution compels is the first sentence: "neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church." That's a narrow, literal reading of the text, but it's a totally reasonable one.

So, to apply your reasoning, why shouldn't we fire the justices who decided Everson v. Board for contravening the Constitution by adding a bunch of things to the establishment clause that aren't in the text?

[dragonwriter]

Government sanctioned marriage, per se, is completely neutral to religion or its absence, out neither files rules that are particular to religion, not only annoys the religious. So, no, it doesn't violate the rule laid down in Everson.