The Court Can't Stop Progress

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/01/26/the-supreme-court-meets-the-real-world/justices-put-great-weight-on-existing-property-interests

    In this article Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of law and political science at Yale University, explains that the Supreme Court doesn't like to go against "established practices" or take away rights that have already been given. For example, when the Court ruled on the constitutionality of a national federal bank, many people had already invested their money in that bank, meaning the Supreme Court was less likely to rule it unconstitutional. Since Obamacare has been upheld, judges are now reluctant to overturn it since people have planned their care around it and getting rid of it now would affect far more people. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Court will rule existing same-sex marriages invalid even if it rules same-sex marriage unconstitutional. However, Amar says regardless of the ruling, the spread of same-sex marriage is "irreversible" and will not stop.
      I agree that the Court should be careful about what laws, rulings, ect., they overturn. They should definitely consider how many people will be affected and whether it will be positive or negative. I don't think the Court should rule against same-sex marriage because that would seriously affect couples who were in the process of or planning on getting married. Every time a same-sex marriage ban is lifted, news reports show multiple couples getting married as soon as possible- and many of them are above the usual age of marriage and have been together for years. Same-sex couples wait for years just to be able to marry the person they love - it would be horrible if the Supreme Court set back all the progress that has been made for them.