Monday, October 6, 2014
Supreme Court Delivers Tacit Win to Gay Marriage
The Supreme Court let stand same-sex marriage in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. The article talks about the significance of this ruling, and then goes on to state how within weeks legal ripples from the decision could expand same-sex marriage to 30 states. Clearly this is a very historic day for anyone who is pro same-sex marriage. There has been a major struggle especially of late and same-sex marriage has been very hotly debated across the nation. Personally I am happy to see the courts rule in favor of same-sex marriage in those five states and hopefully in future the courts will "finish the job". Therefore, allowing same-sex marriage to be legalized across the country.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Personally, I am supporter of marriage for anyone who wishes to be married. I do not even think that same-sex marriage should be something that the government is allowed to regulate. It is not a political or economic issue. It is a social preference. On the other hand, I also don't think that the government should be able to force churches to marry same-sex couples if it is against the beliefs of that church. This is because I believe in the separation of church and state. I do on the other hand think everyone should be entitled to marry legally. One thing that surprised me about this article is that Utah is allowing for same-sex marriages. I have always considered Utah a more conservative and traditionally Mormon state. I'm thrilled to see them making progress.
ReplyDeleteMy view on same sex marriage is that it should be legal nation wide. I think if someone wants to elope with another person of the same sex, it should not be a problem. It's hard to fathom the idea that the government can allow a man and a woman marry, but not a man and a man. In both of those situations, the same thing is happening just with different genders. Marriage equality should not be a concern for same sex couples trying to marry. Those couples pay their taxes just like couples of opposite gender, so why shouldn't they be allowed to legally elope?
ReplyDeleteHonestly I think it's a little ridiculous that this is even still an issue, because the social climate in America has been very progressive in the past couple of decades and the few people that are against change are the ones that are making this take so long for same sex marriage to be made a nation wide thing. Our generation is much more forward thinking and ethical, which is why so many states have rapidly adopted the concept of same sex marriage. If you ask me, it should have happened when this country was founded but better late than never, I suppose. Maybe it's because of my personal religious views, (or lack thereof) but I find it sooooooooo annoying that any type of religious organization gets so much media attention for their views on the matter when it's actually a concern for those who want to get married and them only. It's not the government's choice and it certainly isn't the church's choice. We don't live in medieval Europe, so churches really shouldn't have a say. Anyway besides that I'm happy to see this progress.
ReplyDeleteWhile I support same-sex marriage, (and think it should be made legal nationwide ASAP), I think the Supreme Court is handling the situation very well. By dealing with each state at a time, and not forcing the issue until the people are "used to" same-sex marriage, they are continuing the progress, as opposed to being adamant on the issue and provoking an aggressive response that could erase all of the progress made on the issue.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Mackenzie and Haley regarding the allowance of gay marriage in the U.S, and the governments over involvement in this social issues. If you adamantly oppose gay marriage, then you don't have to personally marry someone of the same sex. I'd prefer seeing two gay or lesbian people share love rather than witnessing homophobic and uninformed people sharing their views against gay marriage. Whether or not someone should be married is a decision to be made between two people, not a whole nation. Similar to the fight for women's rights and the civil rights movement, the fight for gay rights will be seen as a ridiculous issue based on the ignorance of those who oppose it.
ReplyDeleteAlthough is support same-sex marriage personally, I do not think it should come about through a constitutional amendment or Federal standard. In my opinion the issue should be left up to the states to decide for themselves and choose the option most suited to the beliefs of their constituency. The beauty of this country is that not everyone has the same opinion, a Californian doesn't think the same way as a Georgian and attempting to force a hot button issue on a population diverse in opinion will only cause problems.
ReplyDeleteIt is ridiculous that the topic of gay marriage is still an issue in 2014. Haven't we learned from our mistakes? Future generations are going to look back just like we look back on the fight for women's rights and the civil rights movement and wonder why it took us so long. The right to marry whomever you want should be a basic right for everyone. If you're a man and don't want to marry another man then don't but let other people do what they want. People shouldn't care so much about other peoples marriages and pay more attention to their own.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nia. I also believe that everyone should get the opportunity to marry whomever they want to weather it be a man and a man, woman and a woman, or man and woman. I don't think that it should have every been an issue. I believe that the supreme court is dealing with the situation very well. I think that by dealing with one state at a time, it won't over whelm the situation. I think that if you want to get married, you should be able to do as you please and not have the government be a factor of whom you want to marry.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alieen and Noah. Same-sex marriage is a social issue and while we look to the federal government to determine what our social actions should be, that is not always the best course of action. As a Unitarian Universalist I stand firmly on the rights of the LGBTQ community and same-sex marriage is only one social issue that needs to be corrected along a long list of other LGBTQ related issues such as neutral gendered bathrooms. I would like to see a push for these rights on the state level and a national interest that should be pushed. For now, I am entirely happy that more than 50% of the United states have adopted these laws and look forward to seeing more doing so.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSame sex marriage is very similar to segregation laws. It is similar in a sense that the only reason same sex marriage is banned is because there are people at the state level who disagree with it and it is only illegal out of their and in most cases a small percent of the populations interest. The only way that it will be legal is if the federal government says it is like when they ruled that segregation was illegal. You can see by the article however that slowly the federal government is making steps to make same sex marriage legal throughout the country.
ReplyDeleteI'm very happy to hear how many states allow gay marriage now. As more states steadily allow it, I'm surprised that there are still people opposing it. We do not live in a theocracy, and all opposition to gay marriage that I've seen stems from religious views, so it should not be in the government's jurisdiction. I agree with Nia that the Supreme Court is correct in taking the decision state by state. As the article points out in the example of Roe vs Wade, I think people of more conservative states will need time to see how allowing gay marriage does not affect straight people whatsoever. The decision needs to happen slowly to get people accustomed to it,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I find it perhaps troubling that the issue of same-sex marriage has so consistently had to have been decided in federal courts as opposed to state legislatures, I believe the Supreme Court made a good decision in declining to review the cases. Although many are still against the idea of same-sex marriage, it is unavoidable that it will soon become the law of all states, and any effort against this is completely futile. I feel it is time to stop wasting time quarreling on an issue that is mostly decided. It is time for our government to devote its energy and resources to other matters.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mackenzie that same-sex marriage is a social preference, not a political or economic issue the government should be regulating. Personally, I stand behind same-sex marriage one hundred percent. I recently read a line of reasoning for same-sex marriage that said: "I went to subway today to get my favorite sandwich. The guy in front of me ordered a different sub. I was really upset because he didn't order the same sub as me, even though it didn't affect me in any way -- this is what people sound like when they say same-sex marriage affects them." I understand that some people are against same-sex marriage because they believe it is wrong due to their religion or other beliefs, but just because a man wants to marry another man ir a wonan wants to marry another woman doesn't mean you have to too. It should be fully up to the people involved who they want to marry, not the government or any other people.
ReplyDeleteLike Rachel, I am shocked at how many politicians seem to view the United States as a theocracy. Whatever you believe, you should not be able to forcefully subject anyone else to your own views. I stand behind the legalization of same-sex marriage and I tire of hearing it contested. People who oppose it have to recognize that they are fighting a losing battle.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that only one side of the issue is being represented in this forum. First, I'd like to point out that labeling someone who disagrees with you "ignorant," "homophobic," or "uninformed" indicates that you do not have a very strong argument. The fact that you don't understand the cultural beliefs and values of certain groups of people does not make them inferior to you. I think we can have a respectful discussion about the issue without engaging in name-calling. As many of you have already asserted, it is wrong to force one person's views upon another person. This mutually agreed-upon rule of conduct goes both ways in the same-sex marriage debate, as it does in many other debates. Implying that those opposed to same-sex marriage are in some way indecent human beings also suggests weak, infantile analysis by the person making the implication. Quite simply, it adds nothing to the conversation. Furthermore, the idea that the legal status of homosexual relationships has no social ramifications is not a valid one. For one thing, granting marital status to gay couples conflates the original definition of marriage, which is a formal union between a man and a woman for the purpose of raising children. Considering the fact that over forty percent of American children are now born out of wedlock, and that the prospects of success for these children are significantly less than those of children born to a ("traditionally") married couple, it seems that the ideal developmental environment for children is in a household run by two parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, this kind of healthy environment is becoming increasingly rare due to the allowance of practices such as same-sex marriage (and others) that dissolve nuclear family structure, which is a fundamental pillar of Western society. I don't view my position as being against same-sex marriage so much as I view it as promoting the institution of marriage, which is extremely beneficial and necessary to social function. Supporting the institution of marriage does not make someone homophobic, as I would oppose revision of marriage's definition by any person or group who attempted to change it, not just homosexuals. In fact, there is no logical connection between the two positions. Concerning the issue of separation of church and state, I fully support the right of religious people and institutions to refuse to provide their goods and services for same-sex weddings. Any efforts by the government to coerce business owners and others to violate their religious precepts in the name of the "law," would be illegitimate according to the this "separation of church and state" doctrine.
ReplyDeleteAs far as drawing an equivalence between opposition to same-sex marriage and racial segregation, it's quite insulting to the millions of blacks who had to live under vile, discriminatory laws every single day for much, if not all of their lives. Comparing the inability to marry a same-sex partner with being forced to attend separate, and almost always inferior, hospitals, restaurants, schools, and other essential facilities seems ridiculous to me, but hey, maybe I'm just really ignorant. Some consider opposition to same-sex marriage to be infringement of a basic human right. This would be the case if marriage were a right, but marriage is not a right; marriage is a legally-binding contract between two people. Even if marriage were a right, such opposition does not compare to the genuine infringement of Constitutional protections faced by blacks during the era of segregation. It is morally perverse to compare their suffering to the "suffering" of same-sex couples who voluntarily decide not to move to another state that would permit their marriage. With all that said, the national attitude on same-sex marriage is rapidly shifting in favor of it, as the Supreme Court's recent (in)action proves, so it is inevitable that all the states will legalize the practice sooner rather than later.
I think the increasing support for marriage equality is beneficial to the nation. As the article stated, many people are now beginning to accept same-sex marriage, which shows that the country is beginning to become more accepting of viewpoints which differ from those traditional ones. I do not believe that same-sex marriage can hurt anybody, nor have I seen any concrete evidence that same-sex marriage is harmful to society, so I believe that the legalization of same-sex marriage will not be detrimental to the country. Even though I may not fully support the idea of same-sex marriage, I still believe that it is wrong for anyone to force his or her ideals upon others. The government should not have a say in determining what the definition of marriage is. As long as no one is being harmed, I think that the legalization of same-sex marriage will ultimately bring America closer to the its namesake as "the land of the free."
ReplyDelete