首席法官 John Roberts: “
Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.... The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening....
Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."
翻译:美最高法院首席法官 约翰-罗伯茨:【根据美国宪法,法官可以说法律是什么,而不是法律应该如何 ... 结婚的基本权利不包括让州政府改变“婚姻”定义的权利。各州维持人类历史长期以来对婚姻的定义的决定很难说是非理性的。简单地说,我们的宪法没有制定一种婚姻的理论。各州人民可以自由选择扩展婚姻的定义以包括同性伴侣,或者保持历史传统的定义。今天,可是,最高法院采取了非同寻常的步骤,命令各州承认同性婚姻并发给结婚证。很多人会因此欢呼,我不会嫉恨他们的庆祝。但是,对于那些相信法制而不是人制的人们来说,最高法院多数者的做法令人深感沮丧... 五名律师(指五名法官)终止了人民的辩论,而把他们自己的看法制定为宪法权利。从人民手中窃取这一议题对于很多人来说给同性婚姻投下阴云,使这一社会巨变更加难以接受。】
最高法院大法官 SCALIA: “I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy. The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me... It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court....
And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a
select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental ...
But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that
every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years... "
最高法院大法官 SCALIA:【我完全支持首席法官的意见。我单独写这个反对意见来唤起注意:那就是这个法院对美国民主的威胁。今天法院的判决对我个人来说没有太大的重要性.. 但是,具有压倒性重要性的是,谁是我的统治者。今天的判决说,我的统治者,美国从东海岸到西海岸三亿两千万人民的统治者,是最高法院九名律师中的多数.. 允许同性婚姻这种政策问题由任命的、显贵的、高度不具有代表性的九人小组来考虑并决定,违背了最为基本的原则 ... 尤其令人震惊的是今天的司法暴动中反应出的狂傲。构成今天多数的五名法官完全心安理得地结论: 过去135年来所有州都(在婚姻上) 违背了宪法 ...】
更多激烈交锋参见最高法的判决书: