Dear Internet, Please do not claim that the U.S. now legally has "marriage equality." It is a lie...
Dear Internet,
Please do not claim that the U.S. now legally has "marriage equality." It is a lie. If it were true, then any two unmarried consenting adults could marry each other. But they cannot, due to anti-incest laws in every part of this country.
I am not pro-incest (weird that I should even have to say that), but I am pro-liberty, and I am pro-honesty. And those who claim we have marriage equality now, are spreading blatant falsehoods.
Rather than provide marriage equality to all, what we really did was give preferred legal status to a favored group, while still maintaining discriminatory policies toward disfavored groups.
So do not say we have marriage equality, and do not say this is about equal protection of the law, because it's very clearly no such thing.
I could go on about how the equal protection claim made in today's ruling doesn't make much legal sense, but you can read the dissents for that. I only mention it to point out that in every way, this decision was top-down: coming up with the preferred conclusion, and then finding ways to legally justify it. It's not about rights, it's not about equality, and it's not about the rule of law. It is solely about simply wanting gay marriage to be recognized. That's all it is.
And that should be decided by legislatures, not courts.
My view, in case you are unaware, but may glean from the above, is that we should have true equality: any two unmarried consenting adults should be allowed to get the same legal recognition as any other "married" couple.
I further think that governments should cease to use the word "marriage" -- due to the societal baggage and dispute over the term, combined with the fact that social/religious marriage and civil marriage are literally two different institutions with the same name -- and convert all marriages to "civil unions."
And I further believe that this should be done by state legislatures, but that if the Court is going to enforce it on the basis of rights, then it needs to actually be for everyone, not a select group.
So do not paint me as anti-gay-marriage. I am anti-selectively-choosing-gay-couples-to-recognize-as-married, and I am anti-court-enforcement-of-marriage-definitions. I am therefore against this decision. If I had my way, all couples -- including gay couples -- would be 100% equal in the eyes of the law, to all other couples. But we do not have that.
Please do not claim that the U.S. now legally has "marriage equality." It is a lie. If it were true, then any two unmarried consenting adults could marry each other. But they cannot, due to anti-incest laws in every part of this country.
I am not pro-incest (weird that I should even have to say that), but I am pro-liberty, and I am pro-honesty. And those who claim we have marriage equality now, are spreading blatant falsehoods.
Rather than provide marriage equality to all, what we really did was give preferred legal status to a favored group, while still maintaining discriminatory policies toward disfavored groups.
So do not say we have marriage equality, and do not say this is about equal protection of the law, because it's very clearly no such thing.
I could go on about how the equal protection claim made in today's ruling doesn't make much legal sense, but you can read the dissents for that. I only mention it to point out that in every way, this decision was top-down: coming up with the preferred conclusion, and then finding ways to legally justify it. It's not about rights, it's not about equality, and it's not about the rule of law. It is solely about simply wanting gay marriage to be recognized. That's all it is.
And that should be decided by legislatures, not courts.
My view, in case you are unaware, but may glean from the above, is that we should have true equality: any two unmarried consenting adults should be allowed to get the same legal recognition as any other "married" couple.
I further think that governments should cease to use the word "marriage" -- due to the societal baggage and dispute over the term, combined with the fact that social/religious marriage and civil marriage are literally two different institutions with the same name -- and convert all marriages to "civil unions."
And I further believe that this should be done by state legislatures, but that if the Court is going to enforce it on the basis of rights, then it needs to actually be for everyone, not a select group.
So do not paint me as anti-gay-marriage. I am anti-selectively-choosing-gay-couples-to-recognize-as-married, and I am anti-court-enforcement-of-marriage-definitions. I am therefore against this decision. If I had my way, all couples -- including gay couples -- would be 100% equal in the eyes of the law, to all other couples. But we do not have that.
"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