The Debate over Same-Sex Marriage
The Supreme Court of the United States may or may not finally issue rulings to settle this very contentious issue. They need to make a ruling on this and there is only one ruling that makes sense. They should not do as Justice Alito suggested when he said this during the oral argument:
"But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we -- we are not -- we do not have the ability to see the future.
On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?"
Justice Alito, the people already made this decision. We made it when we as a nation ratified the 14th Amendment. I know he knows what it says, but the relevant portion of that Amendment bears repeating:
"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Marriage is not a religious institution when the states determine the laws under which marriage licenses are issued, determine who can legally perform a marriage, and establish the rights, privileges, responsibilities and duties under the law that come with marriage. It is a legal construct and as such discrimination cannot be allowed.
The notion that procreation is relevant to this argument is ridiculous. If that logic were to be followed, then post-menopausal women should not be allowed to marry. Women who have had hysterectomies or are otherwise unable to conceive a child should not be allowed to marry. Men who have had vasectomies, have extremely low motility or are otherwise unable to father a child should not be allowed to marry. Clearly the ability to procreate is not a real benchmark here. It is a rationalization designed to bolster a religious argument about a legal issue.
The argument that if it is discriminatory to outlaw same-sex marriage it therefore becomes discriminatory to outlaw polyandry has some merit until you consider that there is a legitimate social concern in limiting marriage to two adults. Were unlimited amounts of adults allowed to marry each other, they could overload the social safety nets which calculate benefits based on the size of the family unit. How much in food stamps, welfare benefits and other program benefits might a family with nine husbands, 17 wives and 43 children qualify for? How much money could this familial construct earn and still be eligible for benefits, given that "Octo-Mom" could earn $119,000 a year and still get welfare and food-stamps? So this argument also fails.
There is no conclusive scientific evidence that children raised in a same-sex household will not be as well-adjusted or successful in life as those raised in a opposite-sex household.
Can someone offer an argument as to why a legal institution, established by a government that is mandated to treat all of the people equally, can continue to discriminate based solely on sexual-orientation? Apparently not yet.
"But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we -- we are not -- we do not have the ability to see the future.
On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?"
Justice Alito, the people already made this decision. We made it when we as a nation ratified the 14th Amendment. I know he knows what it says, but the relevant portion of that Amendment bears repeating:
"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Marriage is not a religious institution when the states determine the laws under which marriage licenses are issued, determine who can legally perform a marriage, and establish the rights, privileges, responsibilities and duties under the law that come with marriage. It is a legal construct and as such discrimination cannot be allowed.
The notion that procreation is relevant to this argument is ridiculous. If that logic were to be followed, then post-menopausal women should not be allowed to marry. Women who have had hysterectomies or are otherwise unable to conceive a child should not be allowed to marry. Men who have had vasectomies, have extremely low motility or are otherwise unable to father a child should not be allowed to marry. Clearly the ability to procreate is not a real benchmark here. It is a rationalization designed to bolster a religious argument about a legal issue.
The argument that if it is discriminatory to outlaw same-sex marriage it therefore becomes discriminatory to outlaw polyandry has some merit until you consider that there is a legitimate social concern in limiting marriage to two adults. Were unlimited amounts of adults allowed to marry each other, they could overload the social safety nets which calculate benefits based on the size of the family unit. How much in food stamps, welfare benefits and other program benefits might a family with nine husbands, 17 wives and 43 children qualify for? How much money could this familial construct earn and still be eligible for benefits, given that "Octo-Mom" could earn $119,000 a year and still get welfare and food-stamps? So this argument also fails.
There is no conclusive scientific evidence that children raised in a same-sex household will not be as well-adjusted or successful in life as those raised in a opposite-sex household.
Can someone offer an argument as to why a legal institution, established by a government that is mandated to treat all of the people equally, can continue to discriminate based solely on sexual-orientation? Apparently not yet.
posted by me at 8:30 AM
<< Home