Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
A victory in the fight for equal rights: DOMA and Prop. 8 take it on the chin
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
Since we've discussed this issue here quite a bit in the past, I though it was worth mentioning that the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck down the section of DOMA that barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states on the grounds that it violated the Fifth Amendment, as well as dismissed California's Prop. 8 appeal on the grounds that the supporters had no legal standing to challenge the ruling, tentatively allowing same-sex marriage in California once again.
However, since the justices essentially skirted the issue of the constitutionality of statewide bans, the ruling doesn't go so far as to require all states to legalize same-sex marriage, leaving 37 where same-sex marriage is still not allowed. While a victory in the fight for equal rights and full legal recognition for same-sex couples, the fight for true equality itself is far from over. It's a step in the right direction, and something for us to celebrate, but we still have a long way to go. As Nelson Mandela wrote in his 1995 autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom:
However, since the justices essentially skirted the issue of the constitutionality of statewide bans, the ruling doesn't go so far as to require all states to legalize same-sex marriage, leaving 37 where same-sex marriage is still not allowed. While a victory in the fight for equal rights and full legal recognition for same-sex couples, the fight for true equality itself is far from over. It's a step in the right direction, and something for us to celebrate, but we still have a long way to go. As Nelson Mandela wrote in his 1995 autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom:
A man who takes away another man's freedom is a prisoner of hatred, he is locked behind the bars of prejudice and narrow-mindedness. I am not truly free if I am taking away someone else's freedom, just as surely as I am not free when my freedom is taken from me. The oppressed and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity.
8
Comments
http://wearethe15percent.com/
It kind of sounds like a paperwork nightmare for the government though, lol. Of course I think it's worth it, but wow for having to separate which states allow gay marriage and which don't when couples are filing for taxes and SS benefits and such.
Some people, straight or otherwise, should be able to marry or live together-- that should be their choice to decide. Some people, straight or otherwise, should be able to divorce or break up-- that should be their choice to decide. What business is it of mine, yours, or anyone what goes on between a couple and how they relate or express their love for one another?
There are certain legal advantages that marriage confers-- and it obviously makes sense why a couple would want to opt for marriage. You make decisions like this together. Love isn't some pure ideal untainted by the everyday world. Someone else's cynicism (or idealism) about what love is "really" about is irrelevant. It is their choice, and no one else's-- whatever their reasons might be.
In the real world, you buy a home together, your spouse retires, your spouse lands in the hospital, you have children or adopt children, your spouse is in the military and you can move with him/her to where the spouse is stationed. This is a lot more difficult (and often impossible) to do when the option of marriage isn't available. Most serious couples want those legal options BECAUSE they love one another.
Several states already 'turn their eye'.
Lobbying has been going on for that already....for a long time.
Make sure the wife is over 18.
Make sure everyone is treated fairly.
Make sure you can provide financially for everyone.
Just sayin'.....
It remains to be seen what the actual effects of this ruling will have on our society 40 years from now. Maybe the quote @Jason provided from Nelson Mandela will eventually be compassionately understood to include those without voices who are taken from us in our silent holocaust.
It may come down the pike some day but there seem to be far less people interested in that arrangement than there are gay couples. Plus there is at least one legal marriage involved so that tax benefits and other legal issues aren't so pressing.
Being nice has nothing to do with it. It is what I personally believe.
Yes, conventionally they are separate but ultimately not. If someone can reference racism to the same issue with regards to equal rights how is the inclusion of the rights of those human beings who are vulnerable and have no voice be any different then?
That same reference even infers that those opposed to gay marriage are going to be proven to be stupid and the same as racists. That was a pretty blatant inference that warrants no rebuff for going outside the bounds of the topic of the thread?
In my opinion a little bit prejudiced and hypocritical really.
As for the connection between race and sexual orientation in this context, I think that sexual orientation should be considered a 'suspect category' in equal protection jurisprudence along with race because they're similar in that they're both 'minorities' that have at one time or another been unable to effectively use the political process to insure fair treatment from the majority. As Kenneth D. Wald notes in his review of The Constitutional Underclass: Gays, Lesbians, and the Failure of Class-Based Equal Protection: Considering the amount of discrimination and unfair legal treatment that gays and lesbians have endured throughout the years as a class, including when it comes to the issue of marriage and prohibitions that aren't unlike the inter-racial marriage bans of the Jim Crow era, I'm of the opinion that sexual orientation deserves to be placed in the same classification as race; and I wholeheartedly believe that laws targeting gays and lesbians should be subject to the same rigorous review under 'strict scrutiny' as those targeting race.
I see you're point about the relevance of arguing for equal rights for unborn fetuses as if they're legal persons, which is a fair argument to make even though I'd personally argue against the idea of unborn fetuses being legal persons; but we're talking about same-sex marriage here and I'd like to keep it that way. I'm sorry if that's prejudiced and hypocritical on my part.
@betaboy wow, you must be young. I find that to be a common view in people who are currently in college, or just finished college. Then they start living their lives and realize that there is more to life than the "everyone lives under THE MAN" view that is so popular in college. I didn't marry my husband out of commerce or business deal. He most certainly didn't, since all he got out of that deal was to take on 2 kids that weren't his, and a buttload of baggage and financial expense to go along with it. People marry for all sorts of reasons. What those reasons are are none of my, or any one else's, business. I don't pretend to understand the complexities that go into everyone's relationships. Because, why should I? Why should anyone else care why I married my husband? Marriage is only a sham or a trap if the 2 people within it make it so. Also, even a 50% divorce rate is not "most marriages." Many marriages end (that I have seen, including my parents) because the people enter into marriage not being whole themselves, and expect the other person to complete them. It doesn't work that way.
@Silouan I'm sure everyone who is gay appreciates you saying "I love you, but I don't think you deserve the same rights as I do."
Agreed. Its your topic.
@karasti
It seems you are assuming I'm opposed to the ruling. I never said I did.
'Discriminated against'? Well yes. Marriage is a discrimination against people who cannot get married. It still is and it always will be. It's all word-games, this stuff about discrimination and exclusion.
But let's not argue about it. I was only making a protest against all the political cortrectness. We have made this irreversible change to our society at a cost, and we will never all agree about whether the cost was worth it.
@Silouan My apologies. I was thinking back to a previous conversation about the topic from several months ago and I think I confused you with another user.
YOU infer HE/SHE implies.
It should lead a reasonably sensible person to consider the possibility of error.
If we do not see that such a change comes at a cost then this may be a case of lack of analysis. All social change comes at a cost. Omelettes and eggs and all that. It's just a question of whether the benefits outweigh the disbenefits. In this case some say yes, some no. I just happen to be on the no side, as are the gay members of my family.
But the horse has bolted. No point if discussing whether to close the door.
Sorry for causing trouble.
My wife and I had left the Church for a while over conflicts we had with some others about adverse attitudes towards gays and lesbians in mistaking this attitude for the teachings of the Church. This is similar to confusing Muslim killing Buddhists as representative of what Buddhism teaches.
It was during this struggle that we were able to resolve our spiritual and political conflicts. Our spiritual foundation acquired from the fathers is that is not for us to judge whether someone is born or decides to be gay, as it is beyond our measure. Our purpose in life is simply to enlarge our hearts. We were also counseled that to leave the Church and not be there for others less spiritually mature would actually show a lack of love.
I'm a member of the Green Party and I firmly support the separation of Church and State. I'm not opposed to the US Supreme Court decision and accept it as just based on what I currently know about it, as I'm sure there a number of stipulations, but that doesn't mean I believe that same-sex marriage is holy. I also don't believe that receiving communion outside the Church is holy either for that matter. These are beliefs that for me are not externalized or based on a legalistic interpretation of dogma, but something else entirely.
Also, the US Supreme Court decision is not going to dictate, for example, to the Orthodox Church its theology any more than it is going to dictate the rendering of karmic law on sexual misconduct and inappropriate sexual behavior. To make a forced imposition would be unconstitutional and a violation of freedom of religion.
How long is a piece of rope? Whatever the costs may be they haven't been revealed yet. We shall see over time, but there are always costs. I think it would be hard to dispute that our very own existence and interests don't displace in some manner that of other beings, but stating this doesn't mean the decision should not have been made.
Perhaps we can speculate, though we can only at best make forecasts conditionally, and say that there will be a decrease in tax revenue and as a result social programs will be effected or there will be a rise in legal costs for instance.
For instance, when we abolished slavery through war and consolidated power to the central government, it plunged the south into poverty, set up racial resentments, and removed most of each states' power.
I feel it is our responsibility to pay such costs, which includes working to minimize the conflict that arises. We can start by accepting the suffering that will arise from those who have attached marriage to man+woman, because it is real for them. To say they just have to get over it, or shouldn't have that attachment is disrespectful to our own compassion.
It is not my intention or interest to argue about any types of costs, particularly if not founded on an analysis of hard data. I'm just acknowledging the fact that there will be costs in some form or another to produce the expected benefits, and what they are and how they are absorbed will be revealed over time.
If you want to argue things of this nature I'm sure there are sociologists and economists that are more than capable, and though this is your topic you appear to me to be a little overly attached emotionally with much of what some others state to be perceived as negative or in opposition. You stated that you were tired of certain kind of responses, so that in itself implies to me that you are already conditioned to respond in a certain manner.