For some, it's considered a sin against humanity. For others, no ruling from the Supreme Court, no matter how point blank and powerful, will ever be enough to offer assurance of their rights nor amend for the harms of the past.
Not all that long ago, polls on this board overwhelmingly opposed homosexuality and gay marriage.
Today, the reverse is true.
Sadly, the topic will soon be behind us and we'll need to find something else to intellectualize between our pagination of tits and ass.
-New York Times
I chose this summary because it seemed to me to be the best pithy articulation of an enormous topic with many facets of human understanding attached to it.
It has implications for religious beliefs. It has implications for equal rights. It impacts democracy, particularly in our country, as we continue to weigh the rights of states versus the rights of the federal government. More importantly to many, it weighs the individual rights of people versus the the rights of states to govern themselves.
I for one, predict that the Supreme Court will not kick this can down the road for another generation. I feel that the court is eager to resolve the matters at hand.
First, I believe that our society has changed such that the definition of marriage is now inclusive of marriage between two men or two women by default. Not long ago I believe that the default definition of marriage in the US (rightly or wrongly) was indeed that of "between one man and one woman."
But definitions change over time. At one point the definition of a marriage was between any male who could stick it into someone and whomever that someone was, regardless of the number of someones that was or the ages of the someones in question. This included multiple someones when polygamy was common or legal in certain parts of the world or our country. It was long legal to "marry" a young teenager to a person twice that teenager's age. In some places, and at some points in history that are really not all that long ago, it was legal to marry close family members.
If one takes a definitive look at history, they see that it's actually only been a very small period of time (about 1,000 years) that western cultures have defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. Even then again, there were polygamous marriages among other inclusive definitions, and that was solely within western cultures. The majority of cultures in the world are not now, nor have they ever been, western.
Even in the time that the Bible would have been written, it was only a small portion of the world that identified as "Christian" and that had this definition for the life-partnership many enter into. This definition didn't even really apply until recently, and it still doesn't apply universally. It was less than 100 years ago that polygamy was commonly practiced by many Christian sects in the United States, including those that now oppose gay marriage. It's still practiced by some religious sects even now.
The definition that existed in our culture has really only been around a short while in the context of history, and even as such has often been inclusive of terms beyond what today's gay marriage opponents argue is the true and right definition of it as exclusively the term used for one male and one female.
I believe the court is eager to assert the matter of law on the topic of who defines a word, and what a word actually means in this context. I believe that the court will rule that regardless of how someone else defines a word, the word as used by the federal and state governments is one inclusive of a basic human right to marry, and that our society has overall adopted this definition and that this trend will continue. Thus, it's the right and appropriate place for the courts to rule that all governments in the United States use the same definitions of the word, and extend the same rights, freedoms, benefits and burdens to those who wish to enter into this legal contract (because that's what marriage is to our governments - a legal contract).
Secondly, I feel that the court is eager to show that it's true now, as it has always been in this nation, that federal laws trump state laws. We apparently have a nation full of people who either didn't attend school, didn't have a good school, or who have selectively chosen to disregard the lessons they were given on the topic of the Supremacy Clause.
Regardless of how people think our nation ought to function, the way it actually functions is that federal law is supreme to state law.
Also self-evident throughout our nation's most important founding documents, and those that exist today, is that the individual rights of a human being are supreme to those of the federal government. Inalienable rights, fundamental human rights, are secured against our federal government. That's really a tangent though, and I only mention it so that no one else has to mention it and we have a side-tracked debate.
The issue at hand is whether or not state laws can be determined by the federal government. Some states have continually defied the federal government, and have repeatedly asserted that their state has more law-making authority than the federal government.
This notion was actually tried. The Confederation of the United States was designed to do exactly this; to provide states with the ability to trump a federal law.
It failed miserably.
We no longer have a Confederation of the United States. It crashed and burned, so we replaced it with something that worked better. A Constitution for the United States of America.
Some states however, would like to disregard that reality, and would prefer to pretend that they still live under the demonstrably flawed rules of a confederation.
I believe the Supreme Court is eager to assert itself on the matter, and they'll be hard pressed to find a more moral, ethical, or intellectually sound set of cases to do that with.
I think the Supreme Court will rule that gay marriages must be recognized by each state, even if individual states still don't allow gay marriage. I don't believe the Court will rule gay marriage legal across the country. I believe those rulings will come later as people continue to challenge the laws in those states. Remember that this case is about (primarily) someone named Jim and his partner, John, who lived in Ohio. Ohio does not permit gay marriage, so Jim and John had flown to Maryland (where gay marriage is legal) and got married. Upon returning to Ohio, they applied for benefits that married couples can apply for, and Ohio said "No."
The question here is not whether or not gay marriage should be legal in all fifty states. The question is whether one state has the right to ignore and deprive a couple married in another state of the rights of the institution of marriage.
Because of this, I believe that the Supreme Court will rule that all states must recognize same-sex marriages, but I don't believe they'll rule that all states must allow same-sex marriages.
That's my prediction, and I confess it's also my hope.
I'm wondering if anyone else has a different prediction, and different reasons for their prediction.
If so, please share.
Not all that long ago, polls on this board overwhelmingly opposed homosexuality and gay marriage.
Today, the reverse is true.
Sadly, the topic will soon be behind us and we'll need to find something else to intellectualize between our pagination of tits and ass.
Quote:
With intellectual side trips to Plato’s Greece and the land of the Kalahari Bushmen, Tuesday’s arguments challenged the justices to decide whether they are ready or willing to overturn not just legal doctrine but also embedded traditions in the name of equal rights. At what point do thousands of years no longer determine right and wrong? And if what was wrong is now right, is it up to them, instead of voters and legislators, to say that?
-New York Times
I chose this summary because it seemed to me to be the best pithy articulation of an enormous topic with many facets of human understanding attached to it.
It has implications for religious beliefs. It has implications for equal rights. It impacts democracy, particularly in our country, as we continue to weigh the rights of states versus the rights of the federal government. More importantly to many, it weighs the individual rights of people versus the the rights of states to govern themselves.
I for one, predict that the Supreme Court will not kick this can down the road for another generation. I feel that the court is eager to resolve the matters at hand.
First, I believe that our society has changed such that the definition of marriage is now inclusive of marriage between two men or two women by default. Not long ago I believe that the default definition of marriage in the US (rightly or wrongly) was indeed that of "between one man and one woman."
But definitions change over time. At one point the definition of a marriage was between any male who could stick it into someone and whomever that someone was, regardless of the number of someones that was or the ages of the someones in question. This included multiple someones when polygamy was common or legal in certain parts of the world or our country. It was long legal to "marry" a young teenager to a person twice that teenager's age. In some places, and at some points in history that are really not all that long ago, it was legal to marry close family members.
If one takes a definitive look at history, they see that it's actually only been a very small period of time (about 1,000 years) that western cultures have defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. Even then again, there were polygamous marriages among other inclusive definitions, and that was solely within western cultures. The majority of cultures in the world are not now, nor have they ever been, western.
Even in the time that the Bible would have been written, it was only a small portion of the world that identified as "Christian" and that had this definition for the life-partnership many enter into. This definition didn't even really apply until recently, and it still doesn't apply universally. It was less than 100 years ago that polygamy was commonly practiced by many Christian sects in the United States, including those that now oppose gay marriage. It's still practiced by some religious sects even now.
The definition that existed in our culture has really only been around a short while in the context of history, and even as such has often been inclusive of terms beyond what today's gay marriage opponents argue is the true and right definition of it as exclusively the term used for one male and one female.
I believe the court is eager to assert the matter of law on the topic of who defines a word, and what a word actually means in this context. I believe that the court will rule that regardless of how someone else defines a word, the word as used by the federal and state governments is one inclusive of a basic human right to marry, and that our society has overall adopted this definition and that this trend will continue. Thus, it's the right and appropriate place for the courts to rule that all governments in the United States use the same definitions of the word, and extend the same rights, freedoms, benefits and burdens to those who wish to enter into this legal contract (because that's what marriage is to our governments - a legal contract).
Secondly, I feel that the court is eager to show that it's true now, as it has always been in this nation, that federal laws trump state laws. We apparently have a nation full of people who either didn't attend school, didn't have a good school, or who have selectively chosen to disregard the lessons they were given on the topic of the Supremacy Clause.
Quote:
Under the Supremacy Clause, any state law that conflicts with a federal law is preempted. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).
Regardless of how people think our nation ought to function, the way it actually functions is that federal law is supreme to state law.
Also self-evident throughout our nation's most important founding documents, and those that exist today, is that the individual rights of a human being are supreme to those of the federal government. Inalienable rights, fundamental human rights, are secured against our federal government. That's really a tangent though, and I only mention it so that no one else has to mention it and we have a side-tracked debate.
The issue at hand is whether or not state laws can be determined by the federal government. Some states have continually defied the federal government, and have repeatedly asserted that their state has more law-making authority than the federal government.
This notion was actually tried. The Confederation of the United States was designed to do exactly this; to provide states with the ability to trump a federal law.
It failed miserably.
We no longer have a Confederation of the United States. It crashed and burned, so we replaced it with something that worked better. A Constitution for the United States of America.
Some states however, would like to disregard that reality, and would prefer to pretend that they still live under the demonstrably flawed rules of a confederation.
I believe the Supreme Court is eager to assert itself on the matter, and they'll be hard pressed to find a more moral, ethical, or intellectually sound set of cases to do that with.
I think the Supreme Court will rule that gay marriages must be recognized by each state, even if individual states still don't allow gay marriage. I don't believe the Court will rule gay marriage legal across the country. I believe those rulings will come later as people continue to challenge the laws in those states. Remember that this case is about (primarily) someone named Jim and his partner, John, who lived in Ohio. Ohio does not permit gay marriage, so Jim and John had flown to Maryland (where gay marriage is legal) and got married. Upon returning to Ohio, they applied for benefits that married couples can apply for, and Ohio said "No."
The question here is not whether or not gay marriage should be legal in all fifty states. The question is whether one state has the right to ignore and deprive a couple married in another state of the rights of the institution of marriage.
Because of this, I believe that the Supreme Court will rule that all states must recognize same-sex marriages, but I don't believe they'll rule that all states must allow same-sex marriages.
That's my prediction, and I confess it's also my hope.
I'm wondering if anyone else has a different prediction, and different reasons for their prediction.
If so, please share.
* This post has been modified
: 8 years ago
