The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is . It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain , even silly , of thought and expression; it is something else for the opinion of the Court to do so. Of course the opinion's showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. "The nature of is that, through its enduring bond, two together can find other freedoms, such as expression, , and ." (Really? Who ever thought that and [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if is, one would think Freedom of is abridged rather than expanded by . Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can say.)