Historical day in the US

A few days ago, in a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, gay marriage was declared legal in the US and "the right to marriage equality was enshrined under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment." I congratulate the US people for such a historic landmark.

I read it from: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/26/gay-marriage-legal-supreme-court

But boy, I didn't think it would be that close.

This case was brought about by Jim Obergefell, who "sued the state to get his name listed on his late husband’s death certificate".

Opponents to this brought up two points:

(1) "...marriage was defined by law solely to encourage procreation within stable family units – and therefore could only meaningfully apply to men and women" and "...the court should not get too far ahead of traditional conceptions of marriage that are limited to a man and a woman."

which was rebutted by:

"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity."

"The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex."

"That is not to say the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children."

"An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State."

"The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era."

(2) that the court is "overstepping its constitutional role by intervening now" and that the "Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be."

which was rebutted by:

"This Court’s cases have expressed constitutional principles of broader reach. In defining the right to marry these cases have identified essential attributes of that right based in history, tradition and other constitutional liberties inherent in this intimate bond."

"...depriving them of marriage equality “serve[d] to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian people."

"It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm."

So now no US states can specifically ban same-sex marriage. Yay!
0 Responses