...love won out and The Supreme Court decreed that marriages were equal in the eyes of the law. Washington State had already legalized same-sex marriage by then, so I was already attending weddings, designing invitations, and celebrating with friends who had wanted to get married, but couldn't because they were told they had the wrong body parts. But now Washington marriages would be recognized in all 50 states, and it was a happy day for everyone.
Except for random people who still aren't happy unless they are shitting on somebody else's happiness. Never mind that two other people getting married doesn't fucking affect them, they don't like the idea of people with matching genitalia getting hitched, so they think they (or their religion) should get to dictate how other people get to live their lives in a country which was founded on personal choice and freedom of/from religion. And now there's talk of marriage equality being overturned by The Supreme Court, which is ludicrous, but not surprising. Next up? Overturning Loving vs. Virginia, which legalized marriage between two races. And why stop there? Next up? Making it so only Christians can get married and only in a church ceremony. After that? Only people with money are allowed to marry. Then only people with money get to have children. Then only people with money get to vote and own property. And why not bring back slavery? This country was built on it, after all.
This lapse in logical thinking is bizarre and makes no sense, but bigotry never does. Oh well. Keep hating, if that's your thing. Meanwhile, everybody else will be moving on...
Or rather, I should say continue moving on, because same-sex marriage is hardly a new concept and has been around as long as history has been around. But bringing logic into the argument never seems to do any good with haters, so I'm going to go make dinner now.
I love comments! However, all comments are moderated, and won't appear until approved. Are you an abusive troll with nothing to contribute? Don't bother. Selling something? Don't bother. Spam linking? Don't bother.
PLEASE NOTE: My comment-spam protection requires JavaScript... if you have it turned off or are using a mobile device without JavaScript, commenting won't work. Sorry.
Atom Entries Feed Comments Feed
I think….and I might have to think harder, that I understand Justice Thomas’ opinion on the legal matter at hand, which is, depending on your POV much bigger than the issue of marriage equality, and agree on some level BUT their use of the “stare decisis” doctrine is kind of the reason they have a freaking job to help make the Constitution a relevant document for the governance of our country.
Of course I say let’s just amend the Constitution in the first place and nip the “problem” in the bud entirely. I cannot think of a single gay marriage that has effected me personally in any way, shape, or form. Am I for gay marriage? Not really…..I’m never planning on marrying another guy. Am I opposed? Not at all, for the same reason. Do I think a couple of guys or a couple of women should have the right to get married? Sure, if it’s legal where they get hitched (not live, or work)…and I think EVERY state has to accept that jurisdiction’s decision. Idaho never questioned my Las Vegas marriage. I didn’t require their blessing in the form of some tax stamp or proof of approval before or after. Sure, they wanted a copy of the Marriage Certificate, but just to make sure we weren’t lying about getting married….
I think this shouldn’t be a Federal issue, BUT since we cannot seem to play nice on this issue we should just fix our #1 legal document and establish this as a base-line ground rule for everyone. Marry who you want as long as all parties are able to give an appropriate consent and nobody is getting hurt (no child marriages, incestual bonds, etc.)
Having a Constitutional Amendment would really help wrap these things up. Pass the Amendment, have somebody challenge it (good luck!) and when it gets shot down there is the beginning of some Grade-A Stare Decisis.
I have absolutely zero respect for Justice Thomas. Probably even less than zero. So even if I believed that “State’s rights” should be the deciding factor when it comes to something like this (and I absolutely do not agree that States should be able to legalize bigotry), I go re-read his reprehensible comments and remember why I think he’s garbage. What he says is important only because his lifetime appointment in shaping this country cannot be ignored, but it’s crazy time whenever he opens his mouth, so I still get to dismiss.
I will 110% admit I did not read the ACTUAL dissenting opinion of Justice Thomas, but a summation (wish I had saved the link). While I do not approve of singling out a single paragraph of what is normally pages and pages of legal opinion, it’s a pretty good paragraph. After looking up the actual definition of “dignity” I honestly wonder if he or one of his scribes/pages/whatever-the-are-called bothered to do the same. While I can agree than on some level the government cannot “bestow or deny” dignity on a whole to a specific group, it most certainly can impose a “state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect”, specifically by approving/denying rights and/or privileges to one group of citizens and not another.
I understand that Justices appointed by one political party are more-than-likely going to interpret the Constitution similarly to their party members, actual legal/history education/experience not withstanding, BUT I would expect them to make logical interpretations that support their opinion.
I don’t know what kind of bullshit this paragraph is taken from, but logical it is not.