- Politics and Social Issues»
- Social Issues
Supreme Court Decision a Victory for the LGBT Community
Same-Sex Marriage Supporters gather in front of SCOTUS
Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage Nation Wide
Today, June 26, 2015 is a historical moment, not just for gay rights, but for freedom itself. Today in a narrow vote of 6-5 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage nationwide. The subject of gay marriage and gay rights in general has been a subject of much controversy throughout the years. The struggle for gay rights has not only been a bumpy road, but one also paved with the blood of those who have been murdered for being gay, and those who committed suicide because they were unable to endure the hatred directed at them by society and those whom they loved.
Decision Long Overdue
Justice Kennedy Stated the opinion behind the Supreme Court’s decision, citing the Equal protection of the 14th Amendment. The 14th amendment Grants all citizens equal protection under the law. This amendment has frequently ignored in the past, as in the case of the segregation era. It has taken government intervention to grant minorities this equal protection. This nation has come a long way since Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law in 1996. The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA as it is referred to as, was struck down in 2013 in a previous Supreme Court decision. DOMA allowed the federal government to deny gay married couples benefits that were enjoyed by straight married couples. Striking down DOMA did not, however, Grant those rights to gay married couples who lived in states that did not recognize same-sex marriage.
This decision is one that is long overdue. In the past the Supreme Court has been reluctant to make decision that clashed with the beliefs of the religious majority, or as they like call themselves, the moral majority. It is not the job of the government to promote a particular religions Idea of what morality is. The government’s role is to uphold Justice for all its citizens, not to promote a particular concept of morality. Morality is not objective, it is subjected. The Idea of morality is a matter of opinion which cannot be proved or disproved. If our government was in the business of morality, we would be a theocracy like colonial England, and not a representative democracy.
Some Celebrate Decision While Others Do not
Not everyone in this country or even in the Supreme Court are celebrating today. Chief Justice Roberts offered a dissenting opinion. In his descent, he makes the Argument that since for millennia the definition of marriage has been the union of one man and one woman, it must be right and it must always remain that way. This is an argument we have heard over and over again from the opponents of same-sex marriage. Not only does this argument not make sense, it is simply not true. In history there have been times when marriage was a union between a man and 600 women. Even in the Bible that Christians use to support the “standard definition of marriage,” mention King Solomon, who was a follower of god, was said to have many wives and concubines. The definition of marriage that is accepted in America is not defined as it once was. Marriage was for a long time simply an exchange of property, and had nothing to do with love. You did not hear me wrong, I said property. Up until the last hundred years or so, women were considered property. A girl was considered property of their fathers, until a man purchased a woman to be his wife. The father would be compensated with life stock. Sort of takes all the glamour out of the Idea of marriage. Marriage for love is a very new concept in the long history of mankind. So to state that marriage has had the same definition for millennia is just not true.
Chief Justice Roberts Descents
Roberts later makes the argument that the reason for marriage was the biological imperative to have and raise children. Is it biologically impossible to have children without getting married? Of course not, unmarried people have children all the time. If we deny the LGBT community the right to marry because they can’t create children with each other, should we deny marriage to infertile people, or post menopausal women? When a Married couple’s children are grown, and they can no longer produce children, should we force them to divorce? This argument, like most arguments against same-sex marriage, Doesn't hold water.
America Is Truly Becoming the Land of the Free
Somewhere he argues in there that the constitution doesn’t promote same-sex marriage. That’s because marriage isn’t even mentioned in the constitution. It also echoes an argument that marriage isn’t a right. Well if that’s true then I guess gay marriage opponents would be happy to also ban straight marriage as well. Same-sex marriage as well as heterosexual marriage might not be in the constitution, but the preamble of the constitution states that we are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Does the pursuit of happiness not include love, companionship, and even marriage? Today I am truly proud to be an American. I can hear the words “Land of the free” and truly believe it.