I’ve written a lot more in recent years than I would have cared to on the claim that the Constitution forbids the government from defining marriage as a male-female union. In anticipation of next week’s oral arguments in the cases challenging the marriage laws of Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, I offer these summary observations:

1. Unlike so many folks on the other side, I don’t believe that the Constitution imposes my policy preferences on marriage. I instead believe that the Constitution, soundly interpreted, clearly leaves to the legislative processes the question whether or not to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. Even as I disagree with them (for reasons set forth here), I respect the views of those who believe, as a policy matter, that marriage should be so redefined through the democratic processes.

2. On what had been, until the day before yesterday, the perennial understanding of marriage, the concept of “same-sex marriage” is a self-contradiction. I don’t “oppose” same-sex marriage any more than I “oppose” round squares. And laws that define marriage as a male-female union don’t “ban” same-sex marriage any more than a proper definition of a square “bans” round squares. Rather, they reflect the understanding that sexual complementarity inheres in what marriage is.

3. For reasons I outline here, I think that the claim that originalism compels (or, indeed, provides any support for) invention of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage is preposterous. I am astounded that some folks whom I respect are making such a claim (and/or the related claim that judicial invention of such a right is compatible with judicial restraint).

4. Damon Linker, a genuine liberal (an ever rarer thing these days) and a supporter of same-sex marriage, has written a powerful piece decrying the illiberal intolerance of so many progressive SSM advocates and criticizing them for “sound[ing] an awful lot like crybabies” and for “behaving like petulant thugs.”

So much of the ugliness that Linker condemns results, I would submit, from the decision of SSM advocates to pursue their cause through the courts rather than through democratic means. (That decision, I will acknowledge, is entirely understandable, as they have had far more reason to hope for a swift and sweeping victory through the courts. Further, insofar as they regard their cause as a matter of justice rather than simply of preferable policy, I understand their impatience with the democratic processes.) Pursuit of victory in the courts invites and rewards strident and extremist rhetoric that depicts the other side as irrational bigots. Pursuit of victory through democratic means relies much more on persuading one’s fellow citizens to change their minds and on finding ways to accommodate their concerns.

5. As I’ve long made clear, I don’t have high hopes that the Court will decide the pending marriage cases correctly. How could I, after the Court messed up the easy Defense of Marriage Act case in 2013, irresponsibly failed to grant review last October of the federal appellate rulings that struck down state marriage laws, and, even after granting review, failed to stay the adverse ruling in Alabama? Plus, of course, even before briefing was underway, Justice Ginsburg was telling everyone and her sister that she’s confident the Court will strike down the state marriage laws. So, yes, it would seem—to repeat a phrase that is much more apt than its users realize—that the handwriting indeed is on the wall.

That said, it’s not over, and who knows what flashes of insight members of the Court might have? Perhaps Justice Ginsburg will recognize her duty to recuse herself. Perhaps Justice Kennedy will discern that the democratic processes are most capable of handling these and related issues properly. Perhaps Justice Breyer will take seriously his purported aspiration to promote citizens’ participation in political life. Perhaps Justice Kagan will again aver (without duplicity on this occasion) that “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” Perhaps Justice Sotomayor will discover genuine judicial wisdom. Perhaps something completely unexpected will happen.

6. Because there is little basis to believe that these cases will be decided on legal reasoning, I haven’t been monitoring the ins and outs of the briefing in these cases. Nor do I intend to pay much attention to the oral argument.