As much as I disagree with the legal decision on gay marriage -- I am for actual equality in regards...
As much as I disagree with the legal decision on gay marriage -- I am for actual equality in regards to marriage, and this is not it -- at least we are now mostly past the issue. That's the best part of the decision: society can move on. It's kinda like the best part of Obama's election was that we didn't have to talk about whether a minority cannot be elected.
If the correct legal decision had been handed down, we'd have years more of angsting over this issue. I think that is a big part of why decisions like this happen, which is a shame.
We still have a ways to go to get actual equality. Government currently disallows close-relation marriages, not to mention multiple-partner marriages.
And some states still require you to, essentially, have a romantic relationship with your partner (by virtue of requiring causes for divorce, some of which are related to infidelity and so on), which is a clear violation of equality, too: why can't lifelong best friends get the benefits of a "marriage"? What business does government have in telling us the nature of our relationships?
So there is a ways to go to get marriage equality, which does not exist today, anywhere in the U.S. But the majority of the issue is done with. We can move on.
BTW, a modification of the Kennedy's decision:
This dynamic also applies to [sibling] marriage. It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of [sibling] couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: [sibling] couples are denied all the benefits afforded to [married] couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to [sibling] couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on [sibling couples] serves to disrespect and subordinate them.
If the correct legal decision had been handed down, we'd have years more of angsting over this issue. I think that is a big part of why decisions like this happen, which is a shame.
We still have a ways to go to get actual equality. Government currently disallows close-relation marriages, not to mention multiple-partner marriages.
And some states still require you to, essentially, have a romantic relationship with your partner (by virtue of requiring causes for divorce, some of which are related to infidelity and so on), which is a clear violation of equality, too: why can't lifelong best friends get the benefits of a "marriage"? What business does government have in telling us the nature of our relationships?
So there is a ways to go to get marriage equality, which does not exist today, anywhere in the U.S. But the majority of the issue is done with. We can move on.
BTW, a modification of the Kennedy's decision:
This dynamic also applies to [sibling] marriage. It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of [sibling] couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: [sibling] couples are denied all the benefits afforded to [married] couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to [sibling] couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on [sibling couples] serves to disrespect and subordinate them.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment