National Journal writes of Scalia's dissent:
In another seperate dissent, Justice Samuel Alito argues that the federal government did not violate the Constitution by defining marriage. "It leaves the choice to the people, acting through their elected representatives at both the federal and state levels," he writes. Taking a strict view of the Constitution, he continues, "the Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. Indeed, no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue."
Alito also writes that the issue of same-sex marriage is so new to the country, there is no knowing of the broader implications of allowing such an institution, citing the "ancient and universal human institution" of family." The justice made a similiar point during oral arguments for the case in March.
"At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment."
In 1794 Samuel Williams wrote The Natural and Civil History of Vermont, and JSTOR author Ralph N Miller writes of its importance, indicating "Its superiority consists in Williams largely successful attempt to arrive at an understanding of the cirumstances and of the historical forces which made Vermont and the other AMerican states, the amazingly effective social organisms they were" which is "tempered by Williams' acceptance of ... the significance of Nature to the student of all human affairs."
Williams wrote in History of Vermont:
It is not necessary to enumerate the many advantages, that arise from this custom of early marriages. They comprehend all the society can receive from this source; from the preservation, and increase of the human race. Every thing useful and beneficial to man, seems to be connected with obedience to the laws of his nature, the inclinations, the duties, and the happiness of individuals, resolve themselves into customs and habits, favourable, in the highest degree, to society. In no case is this more apparent, than in the customs of nations respecting marriage.
Undeniably marriage was recognized even then, as a result of its importance in the preservation and increase of the human race - procreation. However at this point we have disregarded the relevance of human nature to society, so as to advance a corrupt social engineering based on entitlement, rather than that nature and benefit to society itself, to result in our own destruction.