Looking at this thread I’ve seen arguments for the SCOTUS decisions on gay marriage stated more eloquently and thoughtfully than I could put them. While I support the decision, I appreciate the amount of though put into both sides of the argument.

If you go over to Yahoo comments, it’s a zoo over there.

Having said that, while I DO support state’s right to regulate their own laws, and that those laws reflect the will of the people of those states, the will of the people is a fluid thing. If you look at the will of the people in the 1960’s, it differs GREATLY from current thinking. If you look at some of the protectors of the people’s wills from that time, you’ll find that history is not kind to them.

The job of SCOTUS is to judge the “constitutionality” of that will. Simply because a majority of the people support a law does NOT make it appropriate. As John Oliver nicely said it, “Most Americans would prefer water fountains to flow with Mountain Dew.”

While SCOTUS is made up of those same fallible human beings who are also subject to the fluidity American psyche, in theory the constitutionality of the law is not. While some justices come from points of view that you might find objectionable, it should balance out.

At the end of the day, I believe that if you are unhappy with some of the rulings and agree with others, than you have a pretty good system. IMHO, I believe that SCOTUS got it wrong with Citizens United and the Voting Rights Act, but they made a good, human call with DOMA and Prop. 8.

It’s one of the things that makes us far from a perfect country, but still, IMHO, the best.