The gay community may have things to teach us about what love, commitment and responsibility looks like.

That question alone, and all of the complex problems appearing before the court on this case had me screaming a loud “YES! Sometimes its explicit and sometimes implied, but it’s always there. There are probably half a dozen others I’m not thinking of. Petitioner James Obergefell, a plaintiff in the Ohio case, met John Arthur over two decades ago.

It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law.

And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. Respondents’ argument that allowing samesex So: do citizens have a right to marry? Later that same year, they welcomed another son into their family.

But here goes. But that fact only shows how important it is, how essential we regard it as being.

So there you are. The issue here was not the simple question if gay marriage should be equal. Opting For Gay Couples Counseling? Republican Party or the Party of Hypocrisy. SCOTUSblog has lots of outstanding expert legal analysis on the decision; time for me to weigh in with my decidedly inexpert parsing of it. Remember, justice is blind. But I recognize that as my *feeling*, and that it’s deeply wrapped up in my religious ideals as well. If you can check enough of those boxes, then to those who know you, you’ve got a marriage.

Sure, of course we’ve got you covered there… so long as you’re not murdering people or committing treason. And they know it.

This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.

Shouldn’t that mean that a fundamentalist who refuses to supply a wedding cake to a gay couple has a better claim in court? Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Of course, sometimes it doesn’t work out, and there’s terrible heartbreak and sorrow and pain involved. This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968).

I’m going to be at scout camp all week with my three eldest. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. So despite my deep ambivalence, I think I agree with you, Eric – this was the best decision that could be made for the time and place in which we exist. In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. Finally, the First Amendment ensures that

I was told living together was far more romantic than getting married. I agree with you marriage is a right…Kennedy’s decision was spot on.

The plaintiffs came from the states of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee where same-sex marriages were not recognized.

I saw marriage as a good thing, definitely involving love and commitment. The conclusion of the Supreme Court, delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy according to a 5-4 majority, was that same-sex marriages should be afforded the same rights, recognition and privileges as opposite-sex marriages. Your description of marriage and commitment is quite beautiful, so are Justice Kennedy’s words, “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.”. This is a rough life, and we just do our best. But then, their understanding of marriage was very different from ours. Introspection can help us glimpse this biological substrate in ourselves. And if those who know you think you do, why should anyone who doesn’t know you object? There seem to be multiple, overlapping criteria in our society that make a marriage “real.” They include care and affection, long-term commitment, having sex, having kids, financial partnership, and having similar worldview. But in every statement of rights in every time and every place of human history there is a “so long as” clause. And states and communities did insist that men form militias, and drill periodically with their muskets, and so we have the Second Amendment, though its meaning has morphed weirdly into a right to buy a hunting rifle at Cabela’s.

The founders were brilliant in the fact that they allowed states their own rights (10th Am.).

Here Are 4 Things To Keep In Mind. More to the point, though, the Bill of Rights did not include a right to marry, because nobody thought to include one. But it’s done, and is unlikely to be undone. There was a time when lefties like me were profoundly suspicious of any claim of biological determinism. And so, now Obergefell v. Hodges has come down. If an emergency were to arise, schools and hospitals may treat the three children as if they had only one parent. The petitioners’ stories show the urgency of the issue they

The Constitution never mentions marriage; the word ‘marriage’ never appears in the Bill of Rights. As a writer at Marriage.com, she is a big believer in living consciously and encourages couples to adopt this principle in their lives too. You believe that something is a right because, come on, of course that’s a right. That’s their function. Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. that this decision will cause no harm. I always felt differently. Most particularly, the Bill of Rights does not include a right to vote.

After filing lawsuits in their home states, and federal court districts, the appeal eventually re…

The constitution most definitely does”, for the simple fact that the government cannot bestow benefits unequally or in a discriminatory way. And if not, why not? Or it’s wartime. This couple seeks relief from the continuing uncertainty their unmarried status creates in their lives. But today, we believe that all adult citizens have the right to vote. The Obergefell decision lists lots of case law precedents to support the majority’s claim that marriage is a right, but let’s instead just be, you know, people. In 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of Jim Obergefell and other plaintiffs in Obergefell v. Hodges, declaring both that same-sex marriage is …

Learn more. Those sorts of arguments belonged to eugenicists, fascists, nazis, and other right-wingers.

I agree with you marriage is a right…Kennedy’s decision was spot on. Here and abroad, people are in the midst of a serious and thoughtful public debate on the issue of samesex marriage. And, were tragedy to befall either DeBoer or Rowse, the other would have no legal rights over the children she had not been permitted to adopt. Change ), Gerald R. Ford’s Presidential Museum visit, Another Officer Down. My opinion on this case has me walking a tight rope amongst my partisan friends. “A ruling against same-sex couples would have the

Obergefell v. Hodges: two sides of the same debate, The ancient law of hospitality, the Odyssey, and Sodom, The first salvos in the 2020 Presidential election. Both kinds of monosexuality are biologically unnatural. I wonder if it’s possible that Chief Justice Roberts was hoping for a more conciliatory and moderate draft from Justice Kennedy, one he might be able to join, and was taken aback by how sweeping Kennedy’s decision was. The petitioners, 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition. Their lawful marriage is stripped from them whenever they reside in Tennessee, returning and disappearing as they travel across state lines. But soldiers were quartered in people’s houses without the owner’s consent.

By continuing to browse the site you consent to the use of cookies.

By statute, they must remain strangers even in death, a state imposed separation Obergefell deems “hurtful for the rest of time.” He brought suit to be shown as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. As one of the judges wrote in his dissent “this ruling closed the debate and jammed an opinion down the throat of the American people”. protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling

Would I support calling that a right?

Their fellow GULAG prisoners forced them to eat separately. answer these questions. In ruling that marriage is a fundamental right and extending equal protection to same-sex couples, the Supreme Court created a formal obligation for states to respect the institution of marriage as a voluntary union.

So it’s not a right. Change ), You are commenting using your Facebook account.

They see countries overseas democratically accepting profound social change, or declining to do so.

Social media has once again, been flooded with incompetent ideas and false pretenses with people that have little or no understanding of the law that was ruled on and it is having negative consequences. Think about it. In addition, they can gear up to raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the winning side to think again. That’s a reasonable position. Certainly on the points listed above, gay unions appear to confer similar advantages to straight unions, according to the research we have. Citizens are being harmed. I feel like this is long over due and it isn’t going to harm anyone. Monosexuality is a cultural construct. Can you think of any unrestrained rights? Here’s Justice Roberts final paragraph: If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision.

Loving, supra, at 12 (“[T]he freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State”).

Nothing in this decision forces any church to do anything that they don’t want to do. and so central to their lives and faiths.”.

I mean, fathers might forbid their daughters marrying some wastrel n’er-do-well (leading, at least in novels, to spectacular elopements), but the idea that a government entity would forbid some marriage or another was just nonsense. (As always, I am just a playwright with wifi; I do not claim any legal or scholarly credentials).