Chief Justice Roberts, one of the four justices who voted against expanding marriage rights to all people, expressed in his dissent that, while he thought marriage equality might be a good thing for society, he didn’t see any Constitutional right to it.
A few days later, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, writing in Time magazine, rejected the Chief Justice’s assertion, saying that Roberts was wrong, that the Constitution “had everything to do with it.”
I guess it all depends on one’s perspective.
Some on the Supreme Court believe it’s their responsibility to uphold the words of the Constitution al pie de la letra—according to the letter of the law, ensuring that what was written centuries ago doesn’t change with the times.
Others, however, believe that the words written when our Constitution was ratified are meant to be signposts and guidelines; it’s not the words that are important, but their meaning and intent.
So, interpreting an age-old document in the light of changing norms and realities becomes paramount in the Supreme Court’s responsibilities.
For those of us reared in Judeo-Christian traditions, it’s a familiar dilemma, since we must ask ourselves the same questions about what’s written in the Bible.
Do we follow the letter of the law or the spirit of the law?
“Of all the things that grieve us, perhaps what’s been most difficult is seeing some of our friends, family members and folks we’ve sat next to in church giving their hearty… [Read more…] about Beyond the Letter of the Law