看了以上極為鏗鎗有力的主張，各位深具辯證能力的法律人可曾想過：如果您是站在辯論台的反方，這會兒要提出不同意見書，該如何反駁大法官 Anthony Kennedy 的見解呢？

依「正當程序條款」導引出憲法所未明文列舉的「基本權」，並藉此保障憲法所未明文規範的同性婚姻權，看似有十足的法理基礎，但首席大法官 John Roberts 卻以極為到位的見解，直指其中的謬誤之處。趕緊一起來看看這些不同意見。藉由廣泛閱讀這些深具學習價值的正反不同見解，你我的法律功力又可以輕鬆地往上提升不少。

首席大法官 John Roberts 指出：當大法官依「正當程序」就憲法沒有明文規範的基本權予以解釋及認定時，應抱持著謹慎及保守的態度，「允許未經選舉的聯邦法官，於非經憲法列舉的權利中，選出何者是『基本權』，並且依據他們的決定宣告州法違憲，很明顯地，將會就司法權的定位，引發極大的爭議。本院於判決先例中，向來認為大法官於解釋基本權的內涵時，應秉持著謹慎的態度，以避免『正當程序條款』下所保障的自由權，實質上轉變成大法官的個人政策取向。」 (Allowing unelected federal judges to select which un-enumerated rights rank as “fundamental” – and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determination – raises obvious concerns about the judicial role. Our precedents have accordingly insisted that judges “exercise the utmost care” in identifying implied fundamental rights, “lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the Members of this Court.”)

於是乎，首席大法官 John Roberts 進一步指出：「本院歷來的判決先例要求，承認某個未經列舉的基本權應受憲法的保障，必須建立在依美國的歷史及傳統，早已客觀地、根深蒂固地承認該權利存在之前提下，並且已經隱含於已經建立的社會秩序及自由裏。同時，如果不承認該權利的存在，自由權與司法正義即無法存在。」(Our precedents have required that implied fundamental rights be “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.”)

針對大法官 Anthony Kennedy 所引用的數個判決先例，首席大法官 John Roberts 逐一地予以反駁：「本院決議主要是依照判例先例論述何謂『婚姻權』。但事實上，這些案例並未論及憲法保障每個人得以依憲法締結有效的婚姻。取而代之的，這些判例先例要求各州於婚姻法中設立合理的限制，以確保任何人均了解什麼是婚姻制度。於 Loving 一案，本院認為以種族為由而限制婚姻，欠缺法律的正當性。於 Zablocki 一案，依據養育孩子的義務而限制婚姻，亦不具有正當性。Turner 一案則是依據囚犯的狀態而決定是否限制婚姻，同樣不具有正當性。」(When the majority turns to the law, it relies primarily on precedents discussing the fundamental “right to marry.” These cases do not hold, of course, that anyone who wants to get married has a constitutional right to do so. They instead require a State to justify barriers to marriage as that institution has always bee understood. In Loving, the Court held that racial restrictions on the right to marry lacked a compelling justification. In Zablocki, restrictions based on child support debts did not suffice. In Turner, restrictions cased on status as a prisoner were deemed impermissible.) 以上這些案例，都未改變婚姻的核心定義是：一名男性與一名女性的結合。