24 HOUR SALE: ALL T-SHIRTS 20% OFF!
NeatoShop's last T-shirt sale of the year: get 20% off all T-shirts. Expedited X-mas shipping available - get yours now before the sale ends Dec 19, 2014.

Twin Victories for Same-Sex Marriage

The United States Supreme Court just handed twin victories for the proponents of same-sex marriage.

First, the Supreme Court struck down a part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples, as unconstitutional. It was declared "a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment."

Second, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of a California marriage ban by proponents of California Prop 8. The proposition, a ballot-box initiative that amended the state constitution to restrict the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, was passed into law in 2008. State officials, however, have declined to enforce it. In this case, the Court stated that the private parties who sued have no standing - basically, a legal technicality meaning that they're not entitled to sue.

The twin rulings was hailed as historic:

"Today's historic decisions put two giant cracks in the dark wall of discrimination that separates committed gay and lesbian couples from full equality," said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Commission. He called the rulings "a joyous milestone."

While the Supreme Court rulings cleared the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California, it has no impact on bans currently in place in 38 states in the country.


Image: Wikimedia Commons

Thumbnail image: nito/Shutterstock

What do you think of the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage?

Do You Agree with the Supreme Court's Decisions?



Newest 5
Newest 5 Comments

I agree that marriage to children and bestiality are very different than same-sex marriage, for the express reason that children and animals don't have the ability to consent (children are below the age of consent, and animals just cannot).

Polygamy is a bit different, because if all parties are adults and all consented to the arrangement, then what's the basis for stopping them?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
It's interesting that the "young as 12" argument comes up. There are cultures that marry older men to young girls. Do these cultures appear to have the same freedom and views on equality that are represented by this ruling? No, they are obviously not treating that child properly. Also, they persecute homosexuals; they deny that there are even homosexuals living in their midst. Mostly because when they find them, they kill them. If they're dead, they're not there, right?
As for plural marriage, I'm not for it. I think it is not an equal partnership for all parties. I think of the groups that have it, and they represent a backward mindset - the man is the important part of the relationship, the women are subjugated. If a true polyamorous relationship can exist - and I have no doubt it can - should it be recognized by the state? I don't know if it affects me. That's for future societies to decide.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
That's all very well for people who live in Utopia, I suppose, where people freely associate and disassociate without consequence or responsibility.
Nobody grows old, nobody becomes ill, or dies. Nobody argues becomes abusive. Everyone pays to support their children. There's no fighting over inheritances, since there are no possessions.
This goes far beyond marriage licensing, and extends into every facet of our lives as social beings.
Only within the last decade in Canada has it become taken for granted that someone could appoint a same-sex partner as a spouse on their group benefits plan, or that a same-sex partner could have the same rights as a legally married or common-law partner under the law. This means entitlement to the same legal rights that a heterosexual married or shacking-up couple has.
As for marriage surviving for millennia before the gummint took over, that's a myopic view. Marriages survived because women had no voice, and no choice. Marriage survived because what else could they do? Marriage survived because for many people, marriage itself was not a matter of choice, but a matter of familial and social obligation. Divorce was a huge social stigma. The alternative was to take lovers. Marriage and divorce were taken over by the church, and divorce became nearly impossible to obtain. It is only within the last 30 years that divorce has lost some of its stigma in North American culture. In other cultures, it's still very much a badge of shame.
So, gummint marriage licensing is actually a force for equalization and freedom, rather than restriction and confinement.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Interestingly Kias, marriage thrived worldwide for thousands of years in the absence of state licensed marriage. It wasn't until a couple of generations after the introduction of marriage licensing that marriage failure rates began to grow at a geometric rate. My personal observation has been that terrible government policies that corrode societies, usually take 1-2 generations before their effects are felt.

Furthermore, what was the great need that spurred marriage licensing in the first place? What was the great travesty that needed rectifying? Miscegenation .

Marriage licensing schemes were cooked up from the beginning to interfere with interracial relationships. This was a nux vomica from its conception.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Miss Cellania as much as I'd love to discuss those corollaries at great length, I think they will derail the question at hand, so I will very respectfully remain mute and re-assert my original point.

There is no legitimate or moral right or authority to interfere with another individual's association/dissociation. Full stop.

When someone asks "but what about the effect on X" I picture a reasonable, moderate, moral person in 1830 asking "but what about the entire southern economy? Wouldn't a lot of farmers be hurt?" A lot of very good and decent people asked just this.

Only unreasonable extremists were willing to say that the obvious short term consequences were less important than the greater moral truth, and I realize that I am positing a radical position that may have negative effects on many people.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Commenting is closed.





Email This Post to a Friend
"Twin Victories for Same-Sex Marriage"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window