While I disagree with a full out ban on abortion, I can appreciate that the impetus behind that desire (for many) is more about preserving the life of the child than a desire to oppress the mother. Point for Sox.
The similarity is not in the matter decided but the theme of the decision itself. It is a removal of a barrier, the countermanding of oppression and legalized inequality. And allowing others to make their own choices is absolutely a matter of maturity.
I'd argue social sentiment and these sorts of court decisions generally align over time. I don't know that one guides the other so much as both are driven by the continual progression and maturity of mankind and that driving force keeps the two within reach of one another. With that said, I think the relationship between populace and individuals making up the SCOTUS has a fair amount of interplay as they nudge one another along the path of maturation. In this case, society led the way and it may well be due to the trumpeting of this issue for short-term political gain... that backfired.
... and I would side on the semantics side which argues a law governing gay marriage did exist at the federal level. It just hadn't been applied yet.
"I believe this Supreme Court decision is a grave mistake. Five unelected judges have taken it upon themselves to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that the author of this decision acknowledges ‘has been with us for millennia.’ In 2006 I, like millions of Americans, voted to amend our state constitution to protect the institution of marriage from exactly this type of judicial activism. The states are the proper place for these decisions to be made, and as we have seen repeatedly over the last few days, we will need a conservative president who will appoint men and women to the Court who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our land without injecting their own political agendas. As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage. Recognizing that our Founders made our Constitution difficult to amend, I am reminded that it was first amended to protect our ‘First Freedom’ - the free exercise of religion. The First Amendment does not simply protect a narrow ‘right to worship,’ but provides broad protection to individuals and institutions to worship and act in accordance with their religious beliefs. In fact, the Wisconsin constitution explicitly protects the rights of conscience of our citizens. I can assure all Wisconsinites concerned about the impact of today’s decision that your conscience rights will be protected, and the government will not coerce you to act against your religious beliefs. I call on the president and all governors to join me in reassuring millions of Americans that the government will not force them to participate in activities that violate their deeply held religious beliefs. No one wants to live in a country where the government coerces people to act in opposition to their conscience. We will continue to fight for the freedoms of all Americans."
@Denali Not only is this the SCOTUS - which is independent of the President's administration and indicates that it's actually constitutionally illegal for states to say otherwise - but the President's administration didn't make the federal laws on marijuana and they've declined to get overly draconian and into a power struggle with the states that have recently decided to change.
It's a complaint that seems pretty unfounded. Obama isn't too blame for everything that's wrong with the world.