I'd love to say to Gorsuch that American conservatives circumvented the process of determining the winner of a certain presidential election that occurred a little over 16 years ago, based on a decision that was not the slightest bit consistent with the intended meaning of any clause in the Constitution nor the intended meaning of any precedent, and see how Gorsuch responds.
It's not as if I believe Gorsuch is wrong about how liberals have circumvented the democratic process on those issues (and others), but my point is that Bush v. Gore proved to me that Republicans do not appoint better Supreme Court Justices than do Democrats, and Republicans are utter hypocrites about disdaining judicial activism. I mean hypocrisy in that classic sense of an homage that vice pays to virtue; what Republicans have said is wrong about judicial activism is the right thing to say, but Republicans have not practiced what they preached.
I think an important issue/point is that one of the most important functions of the court is to protect the rights of a class of minorities against majorities.. gay marriage is a right of a minority. A comparison (in the past) may be inter-racial marriage... the democratic process was never going to be able to lead on this issue... it had to inherently fall to the courts.
I happen to think that the most important function of the Court is to resolve every legal dispute with an accurate and unbiased interpretation of law. To be on the side of "a class of minorities" is to be biased.
I feel certain that the Court's conclusion in
Loving v. Virginia was correct, and that Section 1 of the Court's opinion (focusing exclusively on the issue of the racial classification in the miscegenation law being a violation of the Equal Protection Clause) was an accurate interpretation of the Constitution. But I also feel certain that Section 2 of the opinion (proclaiming that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause) was a completely incorrect interpretation of the Constitution. I also feel that the Court's decision in
Zablocki v. Redhail -- cited as an important precedent by the Court in
Obergefell v. Hodges was a completely incorrect interpretation of the Constitution.
Obergefell was neither an accurate nor an unbiased interpretation of the Constitution; the five Justices who made up the
Obergefell majority were biased in favor of gay people. Those who adopted the 14th Amendment were undoubtedly biased against gay people. The people who ratified the 14th were not asked to accuse themselves of being xenophobic.
