I think the real problem here is that both sides of the argument don't bother to stop and think about what being a Supreme Court Justice should mean - even the Justices don't (Justice Scalia certainly didn't, and said so, saying that they can "favor religion over non-religion").
The role of a Supreme Court Justice is to be objective and steadfast in interpretation of the Constitution and how legislation in the United States measures up to Constitutional standards and requirements. In fact, the role of any judge is to be objective and impartial.
Taking the same-sex marriage case as an example, the approach from both sides was, I believe, simply wrong.
It was not a question of, "Gays should be allowed to marry" v "Gays should not be allowed to marry". It was a question of equality as guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment.
The Constitutional guarantee of equality, through the 14th Amendment, is fairly clear, if read objectively: Laws must be leveled equally and not favor one group over another. That's really the end of the argument. If two consenting adults wish to marry, then by the 14th Amendment, they have that right, because marriage is a civil ceremony dictated by law that does not require any religious involvement at all.
So it should have been quite simple: "The 14th Amendment says equal protection under the law. We're done here. LUNCH!"
And that, friends, is the actual role of a Supreme Court Justice - to rule objectively based upon the Constitution.
It was the insertion of religious beliefs that muddied the waters and made the entire situation much more harrowing than it should have been. But that is the nature of our Justices today. None of them interpret objectively based strictly on the Constitution.
That's where the problem lies.
