WASHINGTON D.C. – The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), in a landmark decision, legalized same sex marriage in the United States of America. On Friday, June 26, SCOTUS issued its 5-4 opinion on the Obergefell v. Hodges case. Kennedy delivered the opinion, opening with, “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”
Celebrations outside courthouse June 26 2015 [Courtesy D. Salisbury]
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
The Court’s opinion also made it clear that marriages performed legally in one state had to be officially recognized in other states. As SCOTUS ruled:
The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
Within the opinion, Justice Kennedy offered an historical perspective, saying that marriage has been central to the “human condition” for “millennia and across civilizations.” While he acknowledged that most of the historical references speak of opposite sex unions, he goes on to say that “The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society. The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. That institution—even as confined to opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time.”
Justice Kennedy was joined by Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomeyer. Dissenting opinions came from Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. Roberts wrote:
This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be … Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.
While there are those who directly oppose same sex marriage on religious or philosophical principles, there are others who, like Roberts, feel that the process should have been left to the states and the vote of the people.
![Priestess signing legal documentation for a same-sex married couple in Alabama [Courtesy K. Privett-Duren]](https://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Screen-Shot-2015-02-11-at-2.00.28-PM-500x292.png)
Priestess signing legal documentation for a same-sex married couple in Alabama [Courtesy K. Privett-Duren]
Dianne Duggan is a Pagan Priestess who worked for the US government for decades and practiced law. Last year in her in Illinois, she was finally able to legally marry her wife. Duggan said, “Given that marriage is a legal contract, sanctioned by government, I’ve never understood the faith-based arguments against it. Even marriages that take place under religious circumstances must be sanctioned by government through licensing .. Rights are rights. That is that.” Read Duggan’s full comment
Another legal expert, Dana Eilers, author of Pagans and the Law, said that SCOTUS had “affirmed the great American Experiment, which is the separation of church and state.” She went on to say, “Critically, the majority of the Court found that the opponents of gay marriage had failed to provide any foundation for the dire outcomes which gay marriage opponents so often assert. This, to me, is crucial: there was, apparently, no proof offered to support the awful predictions made by the opponents of gender equality in marriage. Proof and evidence are not yet dead in American courts.” Read Eilers full comment.
Heading south, Dr. Katharyn Privett-Duren, also known as Rev. Seba O’Kiley, is a Priestess of the Gangani Tribe in Alabama, a marriage equality battle-ground state. Same sex marriage was legalized in February 2015, but state and local officials have been fighting ever since. Privett-Duren said that it “takes the efforts and courage of many to change any inequities in the world.” She added that this impulse to enact change should be a “human one born of the need to set things right.” Privett-Duren added:
I am saddened at the responses of some of my Southern friends and family to the SCOTUS ruling. However, this is only a small faction of our South and will, inevitably, become only another archaic echo of a culture’s growing pains. …. My tribe and I hold firm that we can be both Southern and progressive. And while my neighbors are truly heartbroken at the SCOTUS decision, it is my hope that they will one day see that any oppression to any people oppresses us all. Read Privett-Duren’s full comment
Wizzard Rodney Hall, a transgender and pansexual Pagan from Alabama, said, “It has been a long march from … Stonewall riots to the marriage equality decision by SCOTUS … Though I told my partner after SCOTUS struck down DOMA … that this was a landmark decision and we were on a downward slope toward equal marriage rights, I had no clue that it would move this fast.” Like Privett-Duren, Hall knows that there will be some conflict within the state, saying “In Lee County AL, where I live, our courthouse was closed today until they review the SCOTUS decision. There is also Alabama Senate Bill 377 still pending, which seeks to replace marriage licenses with a contract process … Though we still face obstruction from bigots and the ill-informed religious right, I feel that we are on the upswing.”
From Georgia, two Pagans shared their thoughts. Blogger Sara Amis said, “I think it’s important to emphasize the religious equality angle. Pagans, who by and large are happy to recognize same-sex unions, should not be constrained by the beliefs of other faiths in this matter. And now we won’t be.” Amis went on to say that for bisexuals, like herself, “not being invisible matters. Social recognition matters.” Then she added, “And speaking as a Pagan, symbols matter. Rituals matter.” Read Amis’ full comment.
And, Benratu, a Witch and native Georgian, agreed, saying, “I am thrilled to see our leaders make the right decision!” He lamented that for so long he has been unable to “share the same rights and privileges as the rest of the country.” Benratu said “[It]is now possible. I felt a great sigh of relief.” Like Hall and Privett, Benratu also expressed a concern that the ruling may trigger a backlash and increased incidents of homophobic violence. However, he added, “My hope is this will bring our country together and user in more acceptance of different viewpoints.”
![Friday Celebrations in Midtown Atlanta [Courtesy S. Amis]](https://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/11665598_10104587968915360_385061878800736222_n-500x281.jpg)
Friday Celebrations in Midtown Atlanta [Courtesy S. Amis]
Also hailing from California, Rev. Patrick McCollum shared his thoughts, saying, “As one who has worked for gay rights for more than thirty years, I am elated that one of the fundamental rights that we’ve all fought for so long has finally come to be.” McCollum tied the ruling’s importance to his beliefs. He wrote, “Just as we speak of the interconnectedness of all things in a spiritual context, we must also realize that the same principles apply in our mundane lives. How we make space for everyone and how we honor the sacredness of diversity speaks directly to who we are as a people.” Read McCollum’s full comment.
Like McCollum, Rev. Selena Fox has been an longtime activist working for LBGQT equality and religious rights. When Friday’s ruling was handed down, Fox called for a celebration, saying, “I am glad that the USA has now joined the 20 other countries in the world that have legalized same sex marriage — and it is my hope that there will be marriage equality in every nation on this planet.” She said that she has been performing same sex handfastings since the 1980s with the first one in 1983, and assisting with the first legal handfasting at Pagan Spirit Gathering in 2014. Read Fox’ full comment.
![Jumping the Broom. Sparky T. Rabbit and Ray 1984. One of the first same sex marriages at PSG [Courtesy PSG Archives]](https://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/PSG-1984-Peter-Ray-Broom-Jump-500x500.jpg)
Jumping the Broom. Sparky T. Rabbit and Ray 1984. One of the first same sex marriages at PSG [Courtesy PSG Archives]
This enormous victory really speaks for itself. For years I’ve been involved with fighting state-by-state and we’ve seen many victories and some losses. Now that marriage equality is the law of the land, I can’t wait to shift my focus on the other important areas where LGBT people are still not equal. In most states, you can now get married on Sunday and fired on Monday. We now need employment and housing nondiscrimination as soon as possible. But for now, I will celebrate here in DC with the many people involved in this movement, and in spirit with many others around the nation. Love won, and that deserves a celebration.
Agreeing with Salisbury, Circle Sanctuary minister Vic Wright from Kentucky said, “It is a blessed day when the Supreme Court chooses to uphold the law … Now on to the next issues.” In her reaction statement, Fox also looked forward, saying, “We need to be vigilant and take action to counter attempts by bigoted forces that already are planning to undermine this victory under the guise of ‘religious freedom.’ ” Of course, she is referring to the RFRAs, which could potentially be used to counter this ruling. Whether that happens or not is up for debate
California-based Heathen Xochiquetzal Duti Odinsdottir also expressed the need to keep pressing for rights by offering this call-to-action, “The fire is hot, the iron is stoked and burning bright, let’s strike at other issues that affect the lives of the rest of us who live under the “rainbow umbrella … Let’s keep the pressure on our legislators to provide the protections and dignity that we deserve in every facet of our lives; queer, trans, bi, however one chooses to identify.” Read Odinsdottir’s full comment.
The HRC, as an organization, also agrees that there is much work to be done. After issuing its celebratory statement, it turned its focus immediately to remaining problems by sending out a second statement that called for all “state officials to remove obstacles to marriage equality immediately.” These obstacles, for example, include such things as the closed Alabama courthouses noted earlier by Hall, and the public response by Louisiana’s Governor. Just after the SCOTUS ruling, Gov. Jindal issued his own opposing statement, going as far as saying, “Let’s just get rid of the court.” Louisiana is one of the few states that didn’t issue licenses on Friday.
However, not all the remaining 13 states, which prior to Friday’s ruling didn’t issue same sex licenses, were opposed. Georgia reportedly issued the very first same-sex license after the ruling was issued. In Texas, people lined up to get married. Along with the ceremonies, celebrations have happened and will continue throughout the weekend.
Celebrations outside courthouse June 26 [Courtesy D. Salisbury]
And, Jesse Hathaway Diaz, proprietor of The Wolf and Goat, shared this advice going forward, “I’m a firm believer in the ladder principle – if you are going to ascend the ladder, you must bring someone up to your current rung, or you backslide. Nature abhors a vacuum. Let the ‘victory’ of today similarly be a tool. Bring others to the current rung – what we envision should be a reality. Do not be complacent. Share the success. Advance others….. Help others understand why it’s worth sharing. Help others be able to share it with us someday.” Read Hathaway’s full comment.
The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.
To join a conversation on this post:
Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.
On the PBS News Hour the day of the decision, a marriage equity opponent and Christian pastor implied that pastors had been asked to submit sermon texts to be reviewed for homophobia (and, of course, feared more of the same). I have heard similar rumors before. It would naturally be a blatant infringement on First Amendment religious freedom, but I’ve seen no follow-up. Has anyone heard anything more substantial along this line?Along the same line but more substantially, concerns were expressed about the religious freedoms of wedding photographers, wedding-cake bakers and the like who don’t want to service same-sex weddings but fear running afoul of anti-discrimination laws. My advice to them is simple: Follow your principles, break the law and accept the legal consequences under protest. It worked for Dr King, maybe it’ll work for you.
There’s nothing true there at all about pastors submitting sermon texts. Who is going to police that?
And to hell with anyone who doesn’t want to “service” same-sex weddings. You put your sign on the public square you follow the rules of the public square, that means you bake cakes for gay people.
And there’s always been a religious exemption for churches and clergy. That’s not going to change. The Catholic Church refuses all sorts of marriages, not just gays ones for instance.
ALL acts of love and pleasure are rituals of the Goddess. I’m glad that Justice Kennedy rejected strict constructionalism and came down on the side of equality.
The SCOTUS decision was a mistake.
Not because gay marriage should be legal. And the libertarian in me points out that as long as it’s consenting adults we’re talking about, poly marriages and year marriages should be legal too.
No, the SCOTUS decision deprived the states from working it out for themselves. Which the states were doing, slowly and steadily. Instead the country just got something rammed down their collective throat for their own good.
That’s going to stick in some people’s craw. Not because of who and who should not be married, but because those people weren’t given a choice. They were told it’s for their own good, so they should shut up and smile. If they agree about gay marriage or not, many probably think it should have been their choice.
There’s also the question of if government should be registering marriages instead of licensing them, but that is a whole other issue.
What?!!?!? Because couples pay federal taxes this was not a state issue. So a couple in Michigan has to file separately in Michigan but are allowed to file jointly in Iowa? This was not a statue issue. Marriage confers certain rights on the federal level, not just the state one.
That’s where you’re mistaken.
Marriage isn’t about government, it never was. Marriage never should have involved government.
As long as people insist that government is a part of marriage, the definition and acceptability of marriage is literally at the whim of the politicos.
What if at the next election things change and the “right side” isn’t running things anymore?
Marriage shouldn’t be about government, but it is today. And it doesn’t really matter about “right side” in this case because there’s a Supreme Court decision backing up gay marriage.
Pace vs. Alabama, 1883.
The law forbid sexual relations or marriage between “blacks” and “whites.” SCOTUS upheld the Alabama law.
It was overturned in Loving vs. Virginia in 1967.
and how many states still had miscegenation laws on their books, including, blast it, California?
As to “the right side”, Citizens United and Hobby Lobby come to mind, and a few other recent decisions of this Court.
I agree about registration vs licensing–never thought of it, but it makes way too much sense.
I’m wrong about California–it was the first state, in 1948, since Ohio, to repeal anti-miscegenation laws. Most states who still had them, repealed them by 1967; the rest were invalidated by Loving v Virginia.
I find it odd that Louisiana, with its history of Free Men (and Women) of Color and placées, enacted anti-miscegenation laws in 1920. Very few placées were fully black, and those who placed them–with contracts, I might add, were white, and their children were free, as their mothers were.
Louisiana history is its own fascinating can of worms!
It is indeed. Just remember, Louisiana has crawfish because the lonely lobsters following the Acadians over land took a long time, and each generation was smaller and smaller.
I can’t remember if it was a Cajun musician or a Quebecois musician who told that joke.
What’s often struck me is how idten their laws re people of color changed. Of course it first depended on who was in power but then when La became a state it was driven by hate: Slavery but free people of color then whoops – Yankee hate then no slavery but then whoops! – what rights, besides freedom? And so it continued. Such a mix of tolerance and intolerance. San Francisco had some similarities in the 19th century. Speaking of which:
Do you have any opinion on whether or not Mary Ellen Pleasant apprentices with Marie Laveau in Vodu/Voodoo and civil rights activism? I’m referencing Susheel Bibbs. I’d love to believe it but I’m cynical I guess.
I have no idea–haven’t studied Marie Laveau.
The fact that it was later overturned seems irrelevant to you.
It’s more relevant that it happened in the first place. And that it was the law of the land for eighty years because of a SCOTUS decision. And then overturned by another SCOTUS decision.
Or do you think I picked that example by chance?
Of course it should be about gov’t. That’s how society operates.
That’s where you’re wrong.
Marriage has traditionally been about inheritance and property rights, and for the ruling classes, a political strategy.
Exactly.
Yes, marriage has been partially about inheritance and property rights. You did know those things can happen without government, didn’t you?
Now I’m a romantic. I think marriage should be about, you know, people actually loving each other.
So, explain how these contracts were enforced without a governing entity.
My point being, if you want to go on about what marriage “has never been about”, then stop whinging because now it’s about people who love each-other wanting to enter into a property contract and the SCOTUS says that can be between any two consenting adults, regardless of sex or gender. Cos until the last couple centuries, except in cases of elopment (which were legally defined as “rape”, just as an aside note), marriage for love only existed in stories.
Honor mostly. The occasional cattle raid…
My point is that these problems about who can marry and who can’t are caused by government being involved.
It’s a long and detailed explanation, but I’ll give you the quickie version.
Government is not your friend.
Yeah, and once populations got too big and cities developed from villages, it was clear that “the honour system” couldn’t be trusted. Maybe when the worldwide human population goes back down to a mere 5million or less, we can “go back” to your fantasy of “the code of honour”.
The honor system still mostly works, even today.
You chose to deal with the people you feel you can trust. You try not to deal with the ones you don’t trust.
I just feel that people earn that trust, and not by virtue of government.
You’re actually the one mistaken.
Stars above, what are you doing? Waiting for me to type something?
Just think about the question I asked in that post. What happens when “your guys” aren’t in charge anymore?
Who are my guys? I think you have an axe to grind and you are using this forum to do so, even though the decision on Friday may not serve your interests.
I don’t know what happened here. I posted this comment much earlier, maybe two hours ago. Maybe Disqus ate it for a bit. It’s just that you were typing very soon after one below and up it popped.
IMO that’s the point of the 14th to bind states to minimum human rights/bill of rights standards, incl. due process and equal protection. And exactly that was the point. If states don’t like the Bill of Rights (at least) in their interior organization, they shouldn’t have joined the US in the first place.
The 14th gets used very selectively. The admission of Utah as a state comes to mind, as does the treatment of Native Americans to this day.
The problem with having government define a thing is then government decides who does and does not benefit.
This doesn’t mean the 14th is used too often, but too rarely then.
*nods*
That’s one of my biggest beefs.
UNIFORM rule of law. Anything else is trouble waiting to happen.
Yes. Then appeal for (constitutional) law being applied more rather than less, perhaps?
Constitutional law, mostly, yes.
Most of the rest, no.
This here was about constitutional law to begin with. *If* there is marriage for 2 ppl, it has to be for *any* (consenting, of age) two ppl.
I don’t feel that government should be licensing or defining marriage in the first place. I think that was outside any Constitutional authority.
And why should it be only two people?
The idea that Americans have less rights in some states than in others is fundamentally flawed. We are one nation, not fifty. It took a war to decide that issue, and a massive movement a hundred years later to confirm it.
Let states decide state issues. California obviously needs a different water policy than Tennessee. If the residents of Texas want lower taxes and lower services than the residents of New York, that’s their prerogative (I think it’s a bad choice, but it’s still a valid choice). But the idea that a couple can be legally married in one state but not another is logically absurd and practically unworkable.
The idea that rights are granted by a legislature or a court is even more flawed. The fact that we still wait for Official Permission to get married is outrageous.
We need those fifty states arguing among themselves and arguing with the Federal government. It helps keep them all honest.
ETA: Sorry about that. Blasted spell check.
You don’t need Official Permission to have the Religious Rite of Marriage or to live with the person or persons of your choice. You only need a Marriage License to gain the legal benefits of the Contract of Marriage. If you don’t want those benefits, you don’t have to apply for them. But, as long as there are legal benefits granted by the Government for entering into the Contract of Marriage, those benefits must be available to all Citizens equally.
Historically, relying on government to give you legal benefits doesn’t work out all that well.
Even here it’s awfully selective. Poly marriage is still illegal.
And it’s still at the whim of the politicos.
Why ever would poly marriage be suddenly legal?
Why shouldn’t it be?
You can’t figure this out for yourself? Have you mounted the effort necessary to get it legalized?
So gay marriage is okay, but poly marriage isn’t. After all these years…
You know, I wrote about that in 2005.
http://www.paganvigil.com/files/TrueBelieverRant050509.html
I was making the argument years before that.
It’s not a right unless the other guy has it too.
Making an argument is getting a court case heard.
No, because I don’t think a court can decide a person’s morality.
Nor should it try.
You think being gay is about morality? Or being gay and getting married is about morality?
I think a court telling someone that their beliefs aren’t allowed is about morality.
It’s often not about morality when they do so.
The notion that people should be able to marry who they want regardless of sexuality, that strikes me as morality.
Government defining who can and can’t be married, that’s all about elevating one morality over another.
For the record, I believe it is in the Netherlands.
I did not know that.
Since the Government makes the laws, who else can give you legal benefits? I believe that the only law should be the Consenting Adults Principle. In other words, consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of other consenting adults to do the same. (Yes, that includes polygamy, polyandry, and polyamory.) I also believe that, if most citizens weren’t too lazy to be bothered with voting, these things would not be , as you say “at the whim of the politicos”, but at the will of the people. Which is the way the Founding Fathers envisioned it.
I disagree with you about it being the only law, but I agree it should replace most laws.
Why do you disagree? Which laws would you like to see that the Consenting Adults Principle would not cover?
That is a really long subject and it’s really off topic.
I’ve written about it elsewhere. Here’s a good start.
http://www.paganvigil.com/files/RootsGovPower061204.html
Thank you.
Rights are innate – they are not granted by governments. But it falls to governments to acknowledge – and when necessary, enforce – those rights. This is what the court did yesterday, correctly applying the 14th amendment.
I’m inclined to agree with you that governments should be registering marriages, not licensing them.
Let the states argue about tax rates and road maintenance. Personal rights must be consistent across the nation.
Yes, rights are innate. Like it or not, the perception is that these rights were granted by the court. And the perception is that if the “correct” people are elected and the “proper” nominations are made, those rights can be removed.
Legality doesn’t matter without people’s acceptance., We had four different Civil Rights Acts before 1964 (one was a repeat after the 14th Amendment) and two after. In some ways I think the 1964 act made things worse.
If gay marriage had worked through the states, I think that would have been diffused. As it is, I don’t think this is over by a long shot.
You’ll never get everyone’s acceptance. I don’t see much difference in bigots being told to sit down and shut up by a referendum, a state law, or a court ruling.
You’re certainly right that the longer and more deliberate the process, the more time for hearts and minds to be changed, and the less pushback once the law is changed. But how do you balance that against the real harm done to real people during the process?
And at the end of the day, there is the rule of law. Does the 14th Amendment mean what it says, or does it only mean what it was intended to mean in 1865? Scalia is wrong – Kennedy is right.
They aren’t all bigots, but that’s another, longer conversation.
All I’m saying is that if you have to convince people by using force, you’re doing it wrong.
One of the responsibilities of government is to prevent the strong, the rich, and the majority from abusing the weak, the poor, and the minority.
That’s one place where you and I differ.
I don’t think the strong, the rich, and the majority can abuse the weak, the poor, and the minority without government interference.
Take this notion of “gay rights.” How is that different from human rights? Nothing except government action to discriminate against gays.
The strong, the rich and the majority can abuse the weak, the poor and the majority quite easily without government, by virtue of their numbers and power. That’s how mobs, religion, corporations and even governments do it. That’s why gay rights are an issue – because the majority (straight people) have denied us equal rights.
Yes, if governments didn’t recognize marriages, we wouldn’t be having this particular battle. But we’d be fighting religions to not discriminate, or landlords and employers, or anyone else with power.
Historically, the strong, the rich, and the majority have used government to oppress the weak, the poor, and the minority.
It’s only been in the last century or so that we’ve made real progress turning that around.
And government resists every step of the way.
Do you really think, absent a government, the strong wouldn’t oppress the weak (perhaps by forming a government)? What in human history makes you think so?
Nearly every modern revolution has been built on exactly that premise.
The notion that government should protect the weak, the poor, and the minority comes from the 20th Century.
Traditionally, government’s role has been to control and oppress.
It was great to see SCOTUS uphold one of the Fair Housing Act’s most important tools this week. What a week!!!!
The historical record that says otherwise apparently means nothing to you.
History is one of my favorite hobbies. I try to take the long views.
Clearly you’re not very good at it, but Libertardians never are.
I’m pretty good at history.
Ironically at the very same time I’m discussing this here. I’m telling a conservative board why denying people the right to marry is not a good idea.
Oh, and it’s small “L” libertarian, not affiliated with the party.
No you’re not. It’s not about convincing. It’s about acknowledging and then enforcing those rights as law.
There’s a funny thing about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The really important stuff happened before. The sit-ins. The marches. The boycotts. And the people standing up for their rights.
The law was a reaction to what people chose to do. After they’d been convinced, of course. Some Congressmen started wondering out loud what would happen if the law wasn’t passed.
If you *really* think that hasn’t happened over same-sex marriage, then you clearly haven’t paid any attention this last twenty years and your claims about knowing history are full of shirt.
Of course I know it happened with gays.
I’m a guy who says that gay marriage should have worked it’s way through the states just so it would stick. That’s long work, and it won’t happen in twenty years.
Some Alabama counties have already stopped issuing marriage licenses. The struggle isn’t over yet.
I’m also the guy who is saying that we do away with all the struggle, eliminate marriage licenses, and save a lot of time and effort.
Gay marriage – marriage equality – will stick BECAUSE it’s not working it’s way through all of the states.
I’m really tired of seeing the phrase “gay marriage”. It’s bisexual erasure, and (speaking as a TS/TG person) arguably transphobic. Two people who are legally recognised as being of the same sex getting married isn’t “gay marriage”, it’s “same-sex marriage”.
Equal rites (not the Prachett title) or equal marriage are what I’ve always preferred, because to my mind, that’s what the struggle was about.
Equal rights = equal rites 🙂 Or is that too many equals?
I frequently engage in wordplay…IS there such a thing as “too many equals”?
To me, that would be akin to saying, Too much chocolate, too much real love, too much happiness, too much good health…
Yes, and I was repeating what Neo said and correcting it by using marriage equality. I’m sorry that wasn’t clearer.
I agree. It’s hard to find a place in the world as a bi-sexual. Both the hetero and and the homo camps seem to want and prefer an either-or situation with no shades of ambiguity in between.
No, it won’t. It’s too divisive and many people haven’t really made up their minds yet.
Certain people celebrating “total victory” isn’t helping matters much. Especially since some are just doing it to score political points.
The reason why it’s a political issue is because government interfered. This is fixing a government mess with a bigger role for the Federal government. Let’s fix government with…More Government! And if the government can take credit for Social Awareness (despite the fact that the politics did nothing substantial), well then…
You needn’t try to teach me me about recent American history. I’m well-informed.
You seem to have an axe to grind because what YOU want wasn’t included in marriage equality. You’ve attempted to dominate this this thread with your opinions and arguments. The rights recognized in the past 60 years might serve as inspiration for you and those others who want legal poly marriage.
Actually I’m semi-neutral in this, I’m not married and I don’t think I would be a good spouse.
It’s something I call “the reluctant advocate thing.”
Getting back to the point, if you’re going to be married, it shouldn’t matter what sex the partners are or how many there are. I do think they should be consenting adults.
As for me “dominating the thread,” what should I do when people address my comments? Ignore them because my beliefs and opinions don’t toe the line?
Maybe you should’ve stuck to the subject of the thread, instead of making it about poly marriage rights.
I thought I was from the first.
The SCOTUS ruling was a mistake.
For several reasons.
And then you went on to make it about you and poly marriage rights.
Nope.
It’s about rights. It always was.
It’s not a right unless the other guy has it too.
Now pardon me, I’ve company coming over and McFiach my laptop really needs charging.
What other guy?
All other guys.
Ask any biracial couple, with or without offspring, about acceptance and bigots.
Sorry but they *don’t* get a “choice” in someone else’s Constitutional rights. That’s why they’re called “rights.” They’re not supposed to be up for a vote in the first place! So you think all the people whose rights were denied should just have had to suck it up and wait it out? I know if it were me, I wouldn’t give a damn what the people denying me my equal rights *felt* about it. Their objections are little more than the tantrums of a spoiled child who suddenly has to share his toys.
At any rate, Constitutionally, their legal reasoning is sound and solid.
The “rights” aren’t supposed to be defined by government in the first place. And the application still is selective. This ruling was for gay marriage, not alternative marriage. Poly folks all still left hanging, all in the name of equal rights.
I still think that most of the problem is caused by government licensing marriage to begin with. We’re saying it’s a right to get a license?
There was a writer at SodaHead who made a great point. The only reason licenses exist is so they can be denied. And for 80 years, the states did exactly that with the blessings of the Federal government and SCOTUS.
Yes, this ruling wasn’t about poly marriage. That doesn’t make it bad – just incomplete. Would you complain that Loving v Virginia shouldn’t have happened because it didn’t allow same-sex marriage or bigamy or group marriage or any other marriage structures?
No, I would say that government shouldn’t license marriage in the first place.
And I would say that there will be growing problems as long as government licenses marriages and that is the standard.
This is NOT just a state-by-state issue.
Until the SCOTUS ruling, there was not a single married trans person whose marriage would not be contested, should the couple move to another State, and for all sorts of reasons — mainly because “states’ rights” are still given too much power over the people.
Trans people born in Ohio (like myself), Idaho, and Tennessee can have all the surgery they want, including the genital reconfiguration that most States still demand, and we *still* can’t amend our birth certificates for the purposes of getting married. And at least Ohio doesn’t recognise amended BCs from other States. There are countless stories of Trans men and their cis wives, and trans women and their cis husbands, moving to another State for work, or family, or whatever other reason, and suddenly their marriage is “a same-sex marriage” and invalidated.
This IS NOT a matter that should be left up to individual States.
Sorry, I missed this one.
My only stand on marriage is that it’s between the people involved. I think only consenting adults should get married. States should recognize any marriage under those circumstances. I don’t think a license would change that.
I also think Year Marriages would be a REALLY good idea for some partners. But then that’s me.
I think the SCOTUS decision is going to make it harder not easier.
I also think the problems happened because government started licensing marriage.
How would your proposal make it any simpler? The government still has to be involved in adjudicating what’s a valid marriage. What’s consent, and proof of it? Who’s an adult? What happens if A & B marry, and then B marries C without telling A? How does that affect inheritance, or property rights?
What does Obergefell make harder? It makes life easier for queer folk who want to get married, not harder.
My proposal was registering marriage.
It wasn’t anything about adjudication,.
The rest is up to the people involved. As it should be.
You know, something just occurred to me. Could it be that a major reason for government involvement in marriage would be so the government got it’s inheritance tax?
I can’t believe all you folks are still talking to Neo. If this was merely about expressing your opinion, you’d have said your piece and been done with it, but at this point the argument has become about making yourself right and Neo wrong. Jeez, quit feeding this back-and-forth so my inbox will quit blowing up with updates from this thread, lol
Clearly, TWH *still* takes a lot of time to update and manage, but I have to say that I’m disappointed with the turn it’s taken since Jason left. Pretty much every article I read these days on TWH feels like a collection of quotes and responses stitched together with enough words to form a narrative.
I am very happy about this. However; I see some possible cans of worms opening with this. One is; people marrying you to hustle you. Be careful who you marry. Straights have had to deal with this for … the whole existence of humanity. Now we have to deal with it.
Next; we need to use common sense with this. There are already people out there coming unglued over this. Lets not provoke them by trying to force ministers of faiths that don’t accept same sex marriage to marry us. Just because the government might back us up and force them, lets leave them alone. There are plenty of ministers who will gladly marry us. Unitarian Universalists, Unity Church, Episcopals, United Church of Christ, and I probably missed a dozen others are faiths we can count on. Lets not be jerks about this. It might incite violence and we don’t need that.
The Government cannot and will not force any person holding religious office to perform any Rite their Faith does not support. This ruling is *only* about the Legal Contract of Marriage. The Government does not force the Catholic church to perform the Rite of Holy Matrimony for people who have been divorced, but the church cannot prevent them from entering into the Legal Contract of Marriage. Same with interracial marriage. Same with gay marriage.
From the records we have of it, homophobia had no basis in ancient Gaulish or Continental Celtic culture whatsoever. I am more than happy to lend my voice in support of the Supreme Court’s decision, and of marriage equality.
I do t believe the Norse were homophobes either- whatever gets u thru winter
Those who shunned marriage were penalized. It all sounds so very practical!
Justice Kennedy said:
“The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society. The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. That institution—even as confined to opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time.”
Finally someone in power says this about how “traditional” marriage has changed and evolved, in a ruling even!