Well the Supreme Court has made its decision regarding same sex marriages in a close vote. In a vote of 5 justices for allowing same sex marriage to 4 justices against allowing such unions of same sex marriages. How does this happen that our Supreme Court has authority to provide or give the states directions as to which laws to honor and which laws not to honor. Was this same sex marriage decision based upon the constitution of the land or was it more about how the ground swell of people putting pressure on the supreme court justices to be swayed into interpreting the constitution for those who were in favor of same sex marriages.

The job of a supreme court justice is to interpret the law according to the wishes of our forefathers trying to determine their inter most thoughts as to how they felt at the time they were writing the constitution. Regarding same sex marry in the constitution there is nothing in there that even talks about or refers to marriage let alone same sex marriages. So what is it that made the five justices to vote for same sex marriage, when many states have their own rulings against same sex marriage.

People in favor of same sex marriage used the 14 amendment to base their case and the 14 amendment states;

  • "Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
  • Section 2.
    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
  • Section 3.
    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
  • Section 4.
    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
  • Section 5.
    The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

To make their case that same sex marriages should be provided with the same protections such as; not being deprived of life,liberty or property and without due process of the law and should be afforded with equal protections of the law. Where does it talk or mentions same sex marriage or marriage at all.

Our country is based on laws and how we as people should act or carry ourselves towards one another when we interact with each other. Sometimes the people of a country have a feeling As to a particular subject such as same sex marriage and it is strong enough to create a ground swell for the many who believe strongly about that particular subject.

Because the people believe so strongly about a subject sometimes causes our elected officials to try an institute a bill to be voted upon to maybe becoming law or the people of that country had the opportunity to vote a particular bill up or down. This is how some laws have been instituted into our culture. This is how our democracy works.

Our supreme court justices have a lot of power to interpret laws and not to make law obiturally on their own accord. They are given life time appointments or job security. So that they can do their work and not be swayed by the different politically parties one way or the other. But I think just as we all have opinions regarding a certain issue, the justices have the same feeling as well.

Did the supreme court make law regarding same sex marriage, there is a strong possibility they may have, and it goes both ways did they interpret the 14 amendment correctly and just enforced law. Making laws is for our legislatures in congress this is their purpose and job as to why they were voted into office to speak for the people. The debate about same sex marriage will probably wage on.


In conclusion this what one justices wrote; justice Kenney " wrote that under the 14th Amendment's protections, "couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty."

In his dissent, Roberts wrote that the court had taken an "extraordinary step" in deciding not to allow states to decide the issue for themselves, saying that the Constitution does not define marriage. Calling the ruling "deeply disheartening," Roberts said that those on the winning side of the issue should celebrate a victory � "But do not celebrate the Constitution," he wrote. "It had nothing to do with it."

Justice Scalia said the Supreme Court's "highly unrepresentative panel of nine" had violated "a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation."


web analytics


what is my ip