Before the Supreme Court agreed to hear the marriage equality cases that will be argued next Tuesday, three consecutive appellate courts had ruled that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry. Then came the 6th Circuit ruling that denied that right and forced the Supreme Court's hand.

So next week, the hight court will consider whether it agrees with the reasoning of three separate appellate courts, or the outlier opinion, written by George W. Bush appointee Judge Jeffrey Sutton.



"It's an ideal piece of judicial craftsmanship," said Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation.

"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," Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote in the ruling.

It is "dangerous and demeaning," Sutton wrote, to the citizenry to assume that only judges "can fairly understand" the arguments for and against same-sex marriage. "Isn't the goal to create a culture in which a majority of citizens dignify and respect the rights of minority groups?" he asked in the opinion joined by Judge Deborah L. Cook, also a Bush appointee.

Ahh ... an imprimatur from Heritage—a sure indication that it's anything but ideal. But here's a quick look at Sutton's arguments That's not an idea, it's a fact. Heroes in these "change events" have often been judges and lawyers. That's why we have a system of checks and balances.Yes. That is the goal, not that you're helping. No one is saying people can't "fairly understand" the arguments, but they are not tasked with deciding whether something is a fundamental freedom. Judges are.

For more of Sutton's sound reasoning, head below the fold.