His entire dissent revolts as it, like the district court ruling it upholds, ignores the actual questions in the case. I had hoped he would be persuaded by Judge Posner's brilliant opinion; alas, he was not.
Throughout he commits errors. He has a woefully ignorant understanding of the history of marriage and human sexuality. In preparation for this case did he read no scholarly works on that topic? Nor the actual case law, such as that in the Prop 8 case, which explored the question?
It simply is not true that human society has always defined marriage the same way. Marriage, as a either a religious or a civil institution, doesn't/didn't exist in every society. Humans have attached with one another throughout history, receiving various forms of recognition by their societies. Same-sex couples have always been a part of this human history, and at times did enjoy various levels of social acceptance and support. What is being sought in this case is not overturning or radically altering some ancient, sacred tradition of marriage, but the receipt of very concrete rights, privileges, and responsibilities by a segment of humanity that has always existed but has been denied those rights by US law due to animus.
Which brings me to the point that really set me off. He is upset that the majority believes the laws banning same-sex marriage were enacted through bias. Was he in a coma in 2004? Roberts is ignorant to a vicious degree if he actually believes those laws weren't enacted via bias. He writes:
By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition of marriage—have acted to “lock . . . out,” “disparage,” “disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “[d]ignitary wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors.