What actual problems were resolved by the SC decision on Gay Marriage?

1. 51

   bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years ago

   What actual problems were resolved by the SC decision on Gay Marriage?
   
   Be specific, as to the problem and the solution.
   Equal rights is just to vague as an answer to this question.
   
   

   report
2. 74

   aliasisposted 8 years ago

   Gay people couldn't get married before (and therefore did not have access to ALL the rights entitled by couples under marriage contracts). Now they can. The decision also reasserted the fact that human rights decisions should go to the SC (same thing happened with interracial marriage). America also set an important precedent around the world, and will hopefully encourage other countries to follow in legalizing gay marriage (and even decriminalizing homosexuality, which is still illegal in many countries). It's pretty simple, what specifically don't you understand about it? How is "equal rights" vague at all, unless you're not sure what exactly is included in a marriage contract?
   
   But you're right, it didn't solve everything. There is still homophobia, hatred. People in legal positions still try to discriminate against gay couples (for example, the judge in Utah most recently who tried to take away a foster baby from a lesbian couple, purely because they were gay). In many states, you can be fired from your job or denied housing because you are gay, and no other reason. Gay teens are disowned and kicked out of their houses. Gay people are still attacked, belittled, even murdered.
   
   We definitely have a lot of work to do as a society in eliminating homophobia (and racism and sexism, for that matter!). Hopefully one day soon there really will be real equality for gay people.

   report
   1. 80

      dashingscorpioposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Changing laws is only the first step. Historically with each new generation people become more socially liberal and tolerant of others. An unmarried couple living together would have been scandalous in the 1950s! Today that's practically the norm.

      report
   2. 74

      aliasisposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, that's true. Younger generations today are generally pretty tolerant and supportive of gay people. Interracial marriage is a pretty apt parallel, too, though sadly even today there are racist people who object. Still, there's progress!

      report
   3. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The SC didn't change the law, they made a decision. It is the legislature that makes law, and amendments add to the constitution. And there is no such thing as homophobia. It is a slur word like fag and queer.

      report
3. 80

   dashingscorpioposted 8 years ago

   
   
   While the decision itself does not change how a person may feel about same sex marriage it does allow those couples to legally get married in all 50 states and receive the benefits afforded to married couples.
   Generally speaking after laws have been passed or struck down over time (people become more tolerant) regarding the social issue that was addressed. For those alive in 2065 this change will be the norm.
   With each new generation our population becomes socially liberal.
   Back in 1967 the Supreme Court in "Loving v. Virginia" the court (invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage). The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924.
   Today, less than 50 years after that Supreme Court decision there is far less stigma and discriminatory obstacles thrown in the path of interracial couples seeking to get married. Today when people see someone like Michael Jordan married to Yvette Prieto it's no big deal!
   I suspect that 50 years from now the children of this era will wonder what the fuss was all about with state governments attempting to keep people marrying the person they love. It not against the law to be gay or lesbian, it's not against the law for them to live together, or adopt children and yet it was against the law for them to get married in many states.
   In a nation that espouses separation of church and state there is no logical reason for us to justify this form of discrimination.
   Same sex marriage is not mandatory. It doesn't affect us heterosexuals. We're still free to marry our opposite gender.

   report
   1. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      What prob did it solve?SC didn't attempt to provide judicial notice on what is a gay person, nor whether it is a mere sexual preference or something else. They failed to provide judicial notice of when life begin in Roe, and the prob still exists

      report