The Supreme Court does not amend the constitution. You know that....right? They set precedents that may, in the long run, prompt amendments. BUT, they can change federal laws through PRECEDENT. They can determine that curtailing the right to become legally married is a violation.
Since when do SC decisions automatically amend the constitution? I work with new SC decisions every year in my job, yet none of these decisions (Roe V Wade, Brown V Board of Ed, Miranda) ever became an amendment to the constitution.
Laws are dissected every day. That had better NEVER change. The world and cultures evolve. Otherwise we would still be living in mud huts with our slaves and killing our misbehaving children. There have been countless cultural and legal changes in the last 200 years, or have you not noticed?
I believe letting the minority decide what I can do with my OWN BODY and other people's OWN LOVE (as long as they are consenting adults) IS TYRANNY!
I live a very boring and mainstream lifestyle. But I have dear friends who are wonderful partners and parents who are affected by this decision every minute of their lives. Why should you, put your thumb on these people whose lives impact you in a zero, personal, way?
1 - Yes, I know the Supreme Court doesn't amend the Constitution. However, in the examples you gave, change was done BY amending the US Constitution - as I pointed out in my post.
2 - It is NOT the job of the Supreme Court to change what the Constitution says. That should be done by amendment. It is hard to know what the law is, if a judge can change the law based on whim. Unhappily, the US Supreme Court has often decided to MAKE law, rather than to rule ON law.
Ruling ON law, they could never conclude the Constitution gives a right to homosexual marriage, since there is nothing in the Constitution on the subject. Roe v Wade was an obscene travesty of justice: finding a right to privacy, and then applying it to something done by a publicly licensed doctor in his/her place of business (also regulated) and paid for by insurance companies. REAL private. By that standard, every business transaction I make is private and not to be regulated by government.
3 - No one is telling you what to do with your body or love. You can move in and have sex with 7 guys, 3 gals and a hamster, and there isn't any law that I know of against it (except the hamster). However, government often gives tax breaks or special status to things they believe will make our society a better place. That can be a business tax break, or one to help raise kids, invest in green energy, or any of a number of other desired activities.
That has nothing to do with what you decide to do with your body or love. It does have to do with what society has concluded will be helpful to society as a whole. Marriage, with a man & woman trying to raise kids, has been given that recognition by society. The question before the court is if society also must, to comply with the demands of the Constitution, give that recognition to same sex arrangements. This latter recognition is almost unheard of in society for thousands of years. Romans had LOTS of homosexual acts, but generally not homosexual 'marriage'. Other societies banned all homosexual activity, including ours until the 1960s.
No one has a 'right' to marriage. There could not be varying age restrictions, if it was a 'right'. There cannot logically be any restrictions on numbers, if marriage is a right given to anyone who loves someone else.
This is a case where a homosexual judge decided all the states were required to accept homosexual marriage. That is a pretty big step for one person, unelected, to impose on a country. It could reasonably be done state by state. It could be done by Congress tomorrow. But in a democracy, courts should not create law. When they do, they almost always screw it up, since they do so without debate and without popular support.
Yes, I've noticed a lot of cultural changes over time. That is why we have ELECTED OFFICIALS, and why most states allow popular referendums - to change the law. That is how laws should be changed in society - by elected officials. Not courts and unelected judges.
I haven't put my thumb on anyone. What you or others do with your bodies in your bedroom has no interest for me. However, what social structures we encourage, as a society, will affect the future of our society. If you encourage out-of-wedlock births, you encourage child abuse and poverty as a result - NOT because it always happens, but because children
(plural, talking populations, not individuals) born outside of marriage will have a higher rate of physical abuse and poverty. Statistically, they are more likely to end up poor or in prison. That is a cost to society, and thus society has an interest in minimizing it.
Homosexual marriage is far too new to have a track record. Lots of folks, including me, believe there are differences between boys and girls, and we are not gender-neutral widgets that can be interchanged without effect. What effect and how much, no one knows. Having an activist judge make that decision for all 50 states seems a stretch.