The framers of our Constitution were well aware of the drawbacks of democracy.

For the most part, these men believed in a government by the people, for the people. But they also realized that, to achieve the latter, they had to restrict the former. A government by the people means a rule of law dictated by the majority. Most of the time, the will of the majority makes good law. But occasionally, the will of the majority can turn into the tyranny of the majority. Certain classes of people will never be welcomed by the majority. It is only human nature, then, for the majority to enact laws restricting those people’s rights.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the Bill of Rights was designed to avoid these ends by precluding these beginnings. The framers created the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment in order to safeguard the liberty of all citizens — favored or despised. Years later, the 14th Amendment added a new protection for disfavored minorities: a guarantee of equal protection of the laws. Between these two noble dictums, American jurisprudence is imbued with a shield against the tyranny of the majority. The specific minorities in question may change, but the constitutional commands that protect them remain constant so long as our country stands.

This lesson is taught to American schoolchildren every day. But it seems that John Roberts, chief justice of the United States, was absent for that particular civics lesson. So, for that matter, were Justices Alito and Scalia. Based on Roberts, Alito and Scalia’s questions during the Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor arguments, it would seem that each justice would be content to let the majority rule on matters like women’s rights and African-American civil rights. Their faith in the majority is willfully naive, and their insistence on leaving marriage equality up to a majority vote is a shocking abdication of their judicial duty.

Although court-watchers expected Scalia to spew homophobic vitriol during arguments, he remained relatively muted by his standards. It was Roberts who asked the most offensive questions. “You don’t doubt,” he demanded of one attorney, “that the lobby supporting the enactment of same-sex marriage laws in different states is politically powerful, do you?” Roberts then snidely noted that, “as far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case.”

Roberts was referring to the recent spate of senators who have come out in support of gay rights, and indeed, their support is encouraging. But Roberts’ point was to deny that gays were truly a disfavored minority and thus deserved full constitutional protections. It seemed to matter little to Roberts that virtually every senator who supports marriage equality opposed it for many years, that the House remains a virulently homophobic body or that only nine states actually afford marriage rights to gay couples. Roberts doesn’t seem to care that, until recently, gays could not serve openly in the military or visit their partners in the hospital. The democratic process is taking care of this issue already, he believes. A history of homophobia doesn’t matter when gays have senators on their side.

Such comments, though doltish, probably come naturally to Roberts, who, at other times, has displayed a blindness to bigotry that bordered on homophobia itself. Discussing Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California but not civil unions, Roberts stated that gay couples “have every other right. It’s just about the label in this case.” Then he issued this stunning remark to Ted Olson, who was challenging Prop 8’s constitutionality:

“If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, ‘This is my friend,’ but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that’s, it seems to me, what the supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. All you’re interested in is the label and you insist on changing the definition of the label.”

What petty fools supporters of marriage equality are. They care only about the silly label of “marriage,” Roberts believes, and should learn to settle for what they can get. Never mind our nation’s societal and jurisprudential struggle for equality. Never mind the dignity and respect that label affords loving, committed couples. Never mind the 14th Amendment or inalienable rights or a government for the people. In John Roberts’ mind, equal protection of the laws is a privilege bestowed upon the minority by a benevolent majority.

And if they don’t get it, they must not deserve it.

Mark Stern is a senior in the College. LETTERS OF THE LAW appears every other Tuesday.