It's nice to see that it isn't the bileful screen penned by Scalia. But he makes some curious and rather basic errors, I think. While he seems to recognize and acknowledge the establishment of a fundamental right to marry, he seems to also allow states complete authority to define marriage, which has the obvious and extant effect of placing a fundamental right in the hands of the discretion of states. This approach is truly baffling to me, and leads me to wonder what stops a state from defining marriage as "the union of two people who are both white", in his line of thinking.
The explanation for this rather fuzzy judicial theory that a fundamental right may be trumped by a state's authority to define a word may be explained by the fact that he engages in some imaginary history that somehow marriage is an unchanging thing for all of human time and history. This is especially strange given that he presides over a jurisdiction with 50+ distinct definitions of marriage, many of which have been changed several times over the past few decades, sometimes by the predecessors to his own court.
