This is my view (and I affirm the protasis):
if the liberal order is fracturing whether we like it or not—then we should argue for marriage not because the Supreme Court overstepped its authority, but because marriage is true and same-sex marriage is false
(source: Liberal Limits—and Our Opportunity | Brandon McGinley | First Things)
Who advocates arguing in favor of marriage because the Supreme Court overstepped its authority?
Well, for a sizeable proportion of the commentariat that I usually think of as allies or helpful opinion leaders, the leading (or, in some cases, the only principled) public criticisms have had to do with “judicial restraint” vs. “judicial activism” or various related jurisdictional/procedural claims. I take it as given that these arguments, if they can be made honestly and might work, ought to be made.
But we ought not let opposing efforts to pin us down to an argument that they can win, because the language-game has been rigged, to succeed. We cannot let pragmatic arguments about legal arrangements obscure the more fundamental argument, which is that at no point can anyone be obliged to judge based on a fantasy, or to violate a well-formed conscience (a reality-based understanding) by such a judgment. Any regime that attempts to cross that line has ipso facto given cause for anyone with sufficient standing and power to challenge its authority, if that challenge can be made effective; it has drawn its legitimacy into question in a fundamental way.
But when those people make those arguments they are not advocating marriage, they’re advocating judicial restraint – a distinct but no less important question. Seems like a category error to complain that arguments for judicial restraint are arguments for judicial restraint rather than for marriage.
From what I’m seeing, the people advocating judicial restraint (including those who also, separately, advocate marriage) are pretty good about keeping the two points straight.
I think for the most part you’re right, and that’s good. Another way to put this might be “don’t let judicial restraint become a one-way ratchet” plus “don’t think judicial restraint is a sufficient argument when advocating marriage,” on top of an urgent call to advocate for actual marriage.