You are seriously confused. No, it is not the judges job to "follow _their_ interpretation". It is their job to interpret it more precisely than that. That is why the majority on this Court is being criticized for "judicial activism" and the like.
And no, marriage is NOT "a religious institution". If that were so, atheists would not be able to marry. It sounds like you are confusing 'wedding' with 'marriage'. A church wedding, of course, is religious. But it is no 'institution' either.
Finally, as the minority on the Court already pointed out, the state has always before understood 'marriage' to be between a man and a woman, so the majority was changing this definition in their ruling. But they changed it without any convincing legal basis; it looks like it is being done to pander to the "gay marriage" advocates. This is why Judicial Watch calls this "an audacious power grab".
Re; Checks and Balances
You are seriously confused. No, it is not the judges job to "follow _their_ interpretation". It is their job to interpret it more precisely than that. That is why the majority on this Court is being criticized for "judicial activism" and the like.
And no, marriage is NOT "a religious institution". If that were so, atheists would not be able to marry. It sounds like you are confusing 'wedding' with 'marriage'. A church wedding, of course, is religious. But it is no 'institution' either.
Finally, as the minority on the Court already pointed out, the state has always before understood 'marriage' to be between a man and a woman, so the majority was changing this definition in their ruling. But they changed it without any convincing legal basis; it looks like it is being done to pander to the "gay marriage" advocates. This is why Judicial Watch calls this "an audacious power grab".