“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.” — Justice Anthony Kennedy, final paragraph of opinion holding that couples of the same sex have a constitutional right to wed
“Love” is surely one way to look at it, but I submit that “dignity” is closer to what the LGBT community has won. Government and culture are intertwined and I am hard pressed to separate cause and effect between the two, although it’s surely undeniable that SCOTUS would not have ruled the way it did had not public sentiment led the way, as evidenced by the polls and the actions of numerous state legislatures. I credit the entertainment industry for leading the way.
The ruling now gives official imprimatur to the understanding that some people are born different. Back in the ’40’s and ’50’s, when I grew up, being gay was something whispered and hardly real. This sea change is amazing. Who knew that culture could be so malleable? Maybe racism is not impossible to overcome after all?
It does give one hope that we will eventually overcome the bigotry of racism … though I’m not sure I’ll be around to see it.
There is absolutely zero “dignity”in SIN. The recent ruling of SCOTUS has nothing to do with “racisim. This sin has crossed all known walks of life in every town,city ,hamlet ,borough State and Country right here on planet Earth weather you are white,black red yellow or what ever color you want to identify your self with. Using the same logic the SCOTUS used,please tell me why it is wrong to have multiple spouses? At least polygamists can “consummate” the marriage and bring in new life to replenish the earth.,something the LBGT community can never do without crossing the very line they want to say is not for them.
With all due respect, John, as long as you can marry the person you want to marry, why do you care who someone else marries? Their decision has no effect on you whatsoever.
You are correct PiedType.It is not that I care who marries who,its more about passing on this choice and life style to the children.They are innocent. Just wait…we here in America have not seen the full effect of this decision by the SCOTUS…and it ain’t gonna be pretty.
You assume homosexuality is a choice. I disagree.
We can agree to disagree,I accept that. Using the same logic that homosexuality and ALL its variations is not a choice,I submit that criminal behavior is a trait that some people are born with and they do not have a choice.They can’t help it.What kind of person would choose a life style that they know is against the law and would put them in jail or prison?
@ John Steidley,
I would take issue with your assertion that a criminal tendency is as inheritable as that towards homosexuality. Although some correlation has been found between aberrant genes and criminality, such cases are rare and a general correlation has been found to be pretty much a toss-up between nature and nurture. But, this argument misses a major point. Criminality hurts others but homosexuality, which may well be genetically linked to creativity, does not.
Thanks, Jim. Well said.
Good Evening Jim Wheeler. You have spoken well.I agree Criminality hurts others,but to say homosexuality does not hurt others is not sound logic.
Okay, John, I give up. How does homosexuality hurt others?
This ruling certainly helps many stuck in legal situations. Married in one state and not in another creates a nightmare when divorces are sought or custody of adopted children contested with a split. Hospital ER and Intensive care rules/definition of family/next of kin can be sticky if the individual’s parents insists there is no spouse. There has to be “equal under the law”
Having said that, and in the interest of tolerance, freedom of religion, and fee speech, I don’t think churches should be forced to marry those they don’t want to And if a person has strict religious convictions that may limit what jobs they hold, but they shouldn’t be forced to go against what they believe. Some with wedding cakes/photographers – it’s not like the couple can’t go to another bakery or photographer. Forcing participation isn’t necessary.
Times change slowly. But it does change. ( Remember when a “mixed marriage” was between Catholic and Jewish or Protestant? And concern if a Catholic could be elected president and be a good one?)
My 80 year old cousin and his partner have been together over 35 years. They really haven’t been bothered by society’s problem, and of course they have always been family.
Give tolerance for all a chance. Freedom to believe as you wish. (Your freedom ends at the end of my nose, however – with the reverse also being true)
I was just talking with my son about this. We agree churches shouldn’t have to marry a couple if they don’t condone the marriage. But why would you want to force someone to marry you if they don’t condone your marriage? Forced participation is taking equality too far. The churches have rights too. Everyone should respect everyone else’s beliefs (and the churches). I’m getting too old for all this nonsense. Just live and let live. Do unto others, etc. If two people love each other and want to get married, why should that bother anyone else? If you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t get one.
Why, when you have accomplished your goal, would you want to force someone to marry you is referred to in some circles as “rubbing their face in it”)? They call it “prejudicial bullying” these days in other circles. A term, I believe, that should be used more often these days than it is. 🙂
Public opinion is changing rapidly. That’s good. The naysayers will disappear sooner or later. Europe already has homosexual marriage. Now its US. Next? I don’t know, but the precedent is already in place. Now let’s have a brunch and stop complaining about other peoples’ freedoms.