[Pedro Poitevin]

Charlie: I think you are a Christian (a Southern American conservative Christian, to be more precise) and that this marks your identity more than any philosophical principle on constitutional interpretation. (I know many Christians who are for marriage equality, among them some relatives of mine.) On the other hand, when you say you are a constitutionalist, I think you mean that you sympathize with originalism, which is a particular approach to constitutional interpretation.

I am a consequentialist. If a particular set of interpretive principles of a constitution leads to especially unjust outcomes, I'm rather inclined to conclude there is something wrong with the set of principles involved. There is something egregiously unjust in a society that allows its religious majority to prohibit interracial marriage (you may or may not agree with this, but to me this is morally obvious), so if the Perez and Loving rulings had gone the other way, I would have concluded that either the rulings were wrong or (if the rulings were right) the Constitution was wrong.

Finally, I don't think it was the Founders intent to constrain the social, moral, and cultural evolution of the polity to such an extent that hundreds of years after the foundation, people would be deciding deeply important matters of justice by dismissing all other considerations except the pervasive "what was it the Founders would have approved of?"