The Supreme Court can and sometimes does make law, while claiming just to be deciding a constitutional question. I think a survey of the leading constitutional law professors and lawyers in the U.S. would show most of them believe that's exactly what the Court did in Roe v. Wade, for example--even the ones who like the outcome. The Supreme Court itself has backed well away from Roe. For example, the Roe Court declared (without even trying to justify it) that abortion is a fundamental right; but the Court is no longer willing to claim that, and hasn't been for more than twenty years.
This Sixth Circuit decision must make Anthony Kennedy think his big chance is coming to write the new Roe, only this time concocting a constitutional "right" to same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy has for years been riding point for the proponents of the homosexual agenda on the Court. He authored all three of the Court's pro-homosexual decisions--Romer v. Evans in 1996; Lawrence v. Texas in 2003; and Windsor v. United States last year. Kennedy grew up in Sacramento. As a high school student there he got to meet Earl Warren, later to become the Chief Justice, when he was Governor of California. Sometimes Kennedy seems to think he's Warren's reincarnation, riding around like a white knight righting everything he views as a social wrong.
This was in the ruling. How on earth does a judge at this level even mention something like this? This is constitutional reasoning now?When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way
One of you will end up here next!