The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.

There's substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more.

As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

In the political context fair means somebody that will vote for the unions or for the business. It can't mean that in the judicial context or we're in real trouble.

The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.