Some would say it was almost revolutionary. First, unlike several other justices, Scalia pointed out that he really had no vested interest in the outcome of the homosexual marriage case. The law pertaining to marriage would have adverse consequences, but there are other bad laws, too. You can read the full decision, and each of the dissenting opinions, HERE.
Scalia protests gay marriage ruling again in unrelated case
Scalia gay marriage dissent - Business Insider
Email Four Supreme Court justices wrote dissents in Obergefell v. Hodges, the historic ruling issued Friday that guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage. Naturally, Justice Anthony Scalia, the court's most cantankerous conservative, had the bitchiest argument, railing against his fellow judges for what he felt was their bypassing of the democratic process and writing their own law. How bitchy, exactly? Perhaps historically so! Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School.
Antonin Scalia Dissent In Marriage Equality Case Is Even More Unhinged Than You'd Think
Where it is feasible, a syllabus headnote will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Argued April 28, —Decided June 26, [ 1 ] Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied as it is today by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of