Marriage Equality in the United States

[TheNewNo2]

In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court on June 26 struck down states' same-sex marriage bans, effectively bringing marriage equality to the entire US.
The ruling means all states should soon allow same-sex couples to marry, but some states may try to briefly resist the Supreme Court's decision.
Before the ruling, same-sex marriages were allowed in 37 states and Washington, DC.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8823655/gay-marriage-legal-scotus-obergefell-v-hodges


As an avid follower of American politics, hell yes!

 

[Strathclyder]

About bleedin' time! This is a proud day for the United States & the world as a whole...

Hopefully, this great news will give Northern Ireland the kick in the pants it needs to finally fall into line with the rest of the UK & Ireland.

 

[Searle]

A great result that's been long overdue. I can't imagine many people in the deep south will be very impressed at all, but it's a good day for LGBT rights

 

[Kernowfem]

Wonderful! Certainly about time. A small part of me will relish watching the scummy Westbro Baptiste Church go apoplectic too.

 

[507021]

Absolutely excellent news to hear

 

[90sWereBetter]

Superb news. Congratulations to SCOTUS and the United States of America.

My god, the sheer amount of salt and tears coming from the GOP and Fox News regarding this. It's hilarious.

 

[Antman]

And I suppose anybody who thinks otherwise gets branded homophobic?

 

[SS4]

And I suppose anybody who thinks otherwise gets branded homophobic?

Yes. Do you know a good reason why it shouldn't be allowed? (nb: religious belief is not a good reason. Read the First Amendment to find out why)

A great day for the US, I just hope we see tangible results of this ruling soon.

 

[Antman]

Yes. Do you know a good reason why it shouldn't be allowed? (nb: religious belief is not a good reason. Read the First Amendment to find out why)

A great day for the US, I just hope we see tangible results of this ruling soon.

It's called having an opinion. I have a niece who is in a same sex relationship and even they find the whole thing 'distasteful'.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Welcome to the future, America! It's been a good week for the US - a day after a New Jersey court ruled conversion therapy fraudulent as well.

 

[Kernowfem]

It's called having an opinion. I have a niece who is in a same sex relationship and even they find the whole thing 'distasteful'.

My brother marries his partner in August. And both families are thrilled and excited that after five years together they'll be joined together as any couple has a right to be.

I respect anyone's opinion....doesn't mean we all have to feel the same way, I love my brother and I'm proud of who he is. And I can not wait to be his best woman.

 

[507021]

I agree with what Kernowfem has said. I too respect people's views if they differ from mine - however it is my opinion that anybody should be allowed to marry the person that they love regardless of their partner's gender

My best friend is marrying her partner next month and I think it's great that they and other same sex couples are now able to legally marry instead of only being able to have a civil partnership. I'm very proud of her and I'm very much looking forward to giving her away

 

[TheKnightWho]

It's called having an opinion. I have a niece who is in a same sex relationship and even they find the whole thing 'distasteful'.

No-one has told you you can't have an opinion. That doesn't mean that opinion isn't homophobic.

 

[Holly]

And I suppose anybody who thinks otherwise gets branded homophobic?

Well I'm not homophobic. And I'm in favour of same sex marriage.
But I still think it was the wrong decision.

Because it is a matter of constitutional law. And traditionally (since 1776) marriage has been in power and prerogative of the 50 States, not the Feds. The Federal government has specific and limited powers, and in my view they, if you actually read the American Constitution, those powers do not extend to family law.

So it was a wrong decision, and as the dissent wrote, overreaching, and abuse of power. What should be happening (better have already happened) is that the 50 states each, individually, pass laws to permit same sex marriage. The fact that you like the effect of the Federal decision does not stop it from being an improper decision, an abuse of power.

 

[Antman]

No-one has told you you can't have an opinion. That doesn't mean that opinion isn't homophobic.

And if you think that is homophobic then you are of course entitled to that opinion

 

[me123]

Here's how to deal with it Antman. You clearly don't like gay marriage, therefore don't get a gay marriage. Yes, it really is that simple.

You are entitled to have your own opinion on gay marriage, however denying others the right to marry base on your own opinions or beliefs isn't really acceptable - indeed, in America, the first amendment pretty much covers this. You're free to say and believe whatever you like on this matter, but you can't impinge upon the freedoms of others whilst doing so.

Really happy to see gay marriage in America - it's probably one of the most significant steps for global marriage equality internationally. Have to agree that NI really needs to pull its finger out - but they will still always be the country that legalised gay marriage after Texas and Alabama! Indeed, I've been really impressed with the work of the Supreme Court over the last few days, not just with gay rights but also ratifying the ACA.

 

[Antman]

Here's how to deal with it Antman. You clearly don't like gay marriage, therefore don't get a gay marriage. Yes, it really is that simple.

You are entitled to have your own opinion on gay marriage, however denying others the right to marry base on your own opinions or beliefs isn't really acceptable - indeed, in America, the first amendment pretty much covers this. You're free to say and believe whatever you like on this matter, but you can't impinge upon the freedoms of others whilst doing so.

Really happy to see gay marriage in America - it's probably one of the most significant steps for global marriage equality internationally. Have to agree that NI really needs to pull its finger out - but they will still always be the country that legalised gay marriage after Texas and Alabama! Indeed, I've been really impressed with the work of the Supreme Court over the last few days, not just with gay rights but also ratifying the ACA.

It doesn't really affect my day to day life one way or another, I just think the whole concept of marriage has been devalued over the years and this is probably the final nail in the coffin.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but that doesn't make you right and Northern Ireland wrong.

 

[radamfi]

We don't need marriage to be either officially legal or illegal. By all means have a ceremony and bring along a priest or other enthusiast to make it more interesting, but there's no need for a record of the event to be stored in the Town Hall. Whether or not you have participated in such a ceremony should bear no influence on any social security benefits, taxes, or any law. Nor should there be a severe financial penalty for deciding that your marriage is over.

 

[TheKnightWho]

And if you think that is homophobic then you are of course entitled to that opinion

Yes. Because challenging each other's opinions does not mean we think the other person isn't entitled to an opinion. This constant reassurance is effectively just saying "I believe this and won't explain why".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It doesn't really affect my day to day life one way or another, I just think the whole concept of marriage has been devalued over the years and this is probably the final nail in the coffin.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but that doesn't make you right and Northern Ireland wrong.

How is it devalued? What, exactly, devalues it when two people of the same sex get married?

 

[radamfi]

I think a more relevant word than "devalue" is "exclusive". Obviously if more people can do something, it is less exclusive.

In the Netherlands, there used to be three main train categories run by NS: Stoptrein, Sneltrein and Intercity. Stoptrein stopped everywhere, Intercity stopped at main stops and Sneltrein was in the middle. They have renamed Stoptrein as Sprinter and Sneltrein as Intercity. I believe I wrote on the International section that NS had "devalued" Intercity by renaming Sneltrein also to Intercity. So I probably made the same mistake there.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

There's been a lot of media and policy help in trying to change peoples opinion on this matter. What's the next to ask for marriage?
Bother and Sister?? Three Person Mariages?? Pets?,

Marriage is not just about a group in love.
I know married couples who hate each other and non-married ones in love.
It's a traditional bonding and if it's altered with it's not traditional.
Religion is important on this matter, to say it isn't is just wrong.
It seams that this matter has put many in trouble solely because of their religious beliefs.
Made up nonsensicsl terms like "Homophobic" (homo = man, phobic = scared of) are used to stop people expressing their view.
But regardless of all that, the US government forcing all states to accept this law is undemocratic for the states involved.

 

[Antman]

Yes. Because challenging each other's opinions does not mean we think the other person isn't entitled to an opinion. This constant reassurance is effectively just saying "I believe this and won't explain why".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


How is it devalued? What, exactly, devalues it when two people of the same sex get married?

Grimsbypacer has summed it up very well.

 

[me123]

What's the next to ask for marriage?
Bother and Sister?? Three Person Mariages??

Polygamy does exist in many cultures, but it doesn't really affect very many people. Polyamorous relationships do exist, although they are relatively rare and as such I haven't really given much thought to the ethics and issues surrounding this, let alone marriage. I suppose that if all parties are in agreement then I really don't see the issue, although it's certainly not something I can imagine being involved in. However, there would be huge legal issues surrounding polygamous marriages that would probably in practice make such a marriage impractical.

Sibling marriage - this gets into very complicated waters regarding a potentially abusive relationship, and potential psychological damage resulting from said relationship. It's certainly possible for siblings to become romantically involved in a consensual way- although, again, I suspect it's very rare and very much a taboo. In terms of heterosexual relationships, there are significant genetic issues regarding children with birth defects, and the politics of abortion that would surround that (which I won't go into). Culturally, to say that incest is frowned upon would be a massive understatement. I don't think there's really any desire for this to happen in reality.

Pets?

Pets lack the ability to give informed consent to entering into marriage. And, before anyone suggests children or inanimate objects, they also lack the ability to give informed consent.

Marriage is not just about a group in love.
I know married couples who hate each other and non-married ones in love.
It's a traditional bonding and if it's altered with it's not traditional.
Religion is important on this matter, to say it isn't is just wrong.
It seams that this matter has put many in trouble solely because of their religious beliefs.

Marriage existed before religion did, and in the grand scheme of things marriage as a religious ceremony is a relatively modern idea (by which I mean a few centuries). The earliest marriages were purely related to legal property rights and the production of heirs - and in fact in these marriages the woman was generally seen to be property of her husband, a notion which I hope most of us will reject. Love and religion weren't necessarily involved.

In terms of religion - Christianity only recognised marriage in the 7th Century, and it wasn't until the Council of Trent that marriage became a formally recognised religious sacrament. In fact, some very early Christians supposedly opposed the idea of marriage entirely! I suppose this lives on today for some people who choose to remain single and devote their life to their religion (Catholic priests, nuns, monks etc.)

Religion is important in the subsequent development of marriage, and indeed marriages as we know them today in this country are largely influenced by the Christian tradition. Nevertheless, this does not give religious groups a right to "own", control or regulate marriage. Religious groups should absolutely be free to recognise marriage as they see fit, however I see absolutely no reason why they should stop gay couples getting married if they so wish.

 

[TheNewNo2]

I saw the last post before mine (well, it was when I started writing), and I just thought "ohhh, this is going to be fun". More anon.

Well I'm not homophobic. And I'm in favour of same sex marriage.
But I still think it was the wrong decision.

Because it is a matter of constitutional law. And traditionally (since 1776) marriage has been in power and prerogative of the 50 States, not the Feds. The Federal government has specific and limited powers, and in my view they, if you actually read the American Constitution, those powers do not extend to family law.

So it was a wrong decision, and as the dissent wrote, overreaching, and abuse of power. What should be happening (better have already happened) is that the 50 states each, individually, pass laws to permit same sex marriage. The fact that you like the effect of the Federal decision does not stop it from being an improper decision, an abuse of power.

The problem with that is twofold. First off, people's rights should not be subjected to a public vote, or even to a political vote. Secondly, the idea that something as fundamental as marriage is different in different states is a bit ridiculous. One of the plaintiffs in the case was someone who got married in New York, but they were deployed to Tennessee, and as far as Tennessee was concerned, they were not married. Whether you're married to someone shouldn't change just because you cross a border. Just imagine if that were the case in the UK - on a train trip from London to Bristol you go through London (five boroughs no less), Buckinghamshire, Slough, Buckinghamshire again, Windsor & Maidenhead, Wokingham, Reading, West Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Swindon, Wiltshire, Bath & North East Somerset and finally Bristol. We'd rightly see each having a different marriage law as ridiculous.

It doesn't really affect my day to day life one way or another, I just think the whole concept of marriage has been devalued over the years and this is probably the final nail in the coffin.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but that doesn't make you right and Northern Ireland wrong.

You're quite right in saying that marriage has been "devalued", and it must surprise you then that, after Britney Spears's 24-hour marriage, gay people still want to join in!

There's been a lot of media and policy help in trying to change peoples opinion on this matter. What's the next to ask for marriage?
Bother and Sister?? Three Person Mariages?? Pets?,

Marriage is not just about a group in love.
I know married couples who hate each other and non-married ones in love.
It's a traditional bonding and if it's altered with it's not traditional.
Religion is important on this matter, to say it isn't is just wrong.
It seams that this matter has put many in trouble solely because of their religious beliefs.
Made up nonsensicsl terms like "Homophobic" (homo = man, phobic = scared of) are used to stop people expressing their view.
But regardless of all that, the US government forcing all states to accept this law is undemocratic for the states involved.

OK, first to pick up on your "homo = man" thing. In this case the homo means "same", as in homogenous, and is really a shortening of homosexualphobic.


Marriage is traditional, yes. But that doesn't mean it hasn't changed. You should probably read this Vox.com article, but to summarise:

• Distant past - Marriage = one Man and many women, arranged by parents, of same race, for the purposes of child-bearing
• 18th century - Marriage = one Man and one woman, who marry for love, of same race, for the purposes of child-rearing
• 1920 - Marriage = one Man and one woman, of the same race, who marry for love and child-rearing, who can have sex before marriage
• 1950s - Marriage = one Man and one woman, of the same race, who marry for love, who can have sex before marriage, who may or may not have children
• 1967 - Marriage = one Man and one woman, who marry for love, who may or may not have children
• 1970s on - Marriage = one Man and one Woman (man no longer has dominion over wife), who marry for love, who may or may not have children
• Now - Marriage = two People, who marry for love and may or may not have children

Marriage has changed massively over the years (I didn't include the rights to marry if you're divorced), and it was probably the end of it being a necessarily patriarchal thing that allowed equal marriage.


Religion is not important in this matter. That may be surprising, but it's quite true. Marriage may to some be "in the eyes of god", but it has always been primarily about the transfer of wealth and power. In the past when a man and a woman married, the woman effectively moved from being the property of her father to being the property of her husband. Nowadays we're more egalitarian, but marriage is still the merger of two people into one. We allow tax returns to be filed jointly, we create all sorts of tax subsidies for married couples which two single people do not get. Marriage, in the government's eyes, is a business transaction, and when religion is removed from the equation there is no reason that two people who want to be married shouldn't be (more anon).

Don't get me wrong, religion has its place in marriage, and churches are free to bless or not bless unions as they so wish. However, the first amendment of the US constitution is quite clear that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.... I think we can all agree that that is a good thing. However the law as was did not pass this test, because there were churches (or other religious groups) which wanted to allow same-sex marriages, but were prevented from doing so by the law. What the law did was privilege religions which were against same-sex marriage. If a law does abridge a religious freedom, then it needs a "compelling reason" to do so (eg no it doesn't matter that your religion says murder all the Elvis impersonators, that's murder, you're not allowed to do it). There was no compelling reason to prohibit equal marriage.


Let me now return to your point that ...the US government forcing all states to accept this law is undemocratic for the states involved. Yes and no. America is not a democracy, it's a republic (there are no true democracies, because once you go beyond about five people having everyone vote on every matter is unweildy). As such there are laws and procedures that govern it - two which are relevant are representation and supremacy. Representation is pretty obvious - your district/state/country elects representatives for various forms of government (state, local, congressional, presidential). Then supremacy comes into play - if the law of the country says X but state law says not X, the law is X. Generally the country avoids such situations by only allowing states limited powers. The supreme court is not elected, but they are picked by presidents who are. The laws of the country then say that the word of the court is the law, and so if they decide not X, not X is true throughout the land any any law which says X is invalid. It's not direct democracy, but minority rights should not be at the whim of the majority. I think more people dislike marmite than like it, but if the majority were able to say "I don't like marmite therefore it is now banned", that would be pretty ****ty.


Now, the fun part...

There's been a lot of media and policy help in trying to change peoples opinion on this matter. What's the next to ask for marriage? Bother and Sister?? Three Person Mariages?? Pets?

First off, no pets. I think one thing we can all agree on is that marriages are between people who are intellectually capable of consenting to it. Animals are not capable of consenting, therefore you cannot marry your chihuahua.

Beyond that, I generally say "why not?" As I explained above, marriage is a legal contract, nothing more, and if people want to enter in to such a contract of their own free will, why shouldn't they? For incest, the general reason given is to avoid birth defects, but a single generation of incest is unlikely to cause any issues, and furthermore we know from the equal marriage debate that child-rearing is not a required part of marriage, so this is a non-issue. Polyamory? I'm all in favour of it. Loving relationships between three or more people exist, why should we say they're not allowed to marry? One reason people give is that multiple marriages often means one man and many subservient wives, but I think that if we keep the whole "consent of their own free will, not under duress" thing in mind that is easily overcome. Poly rights is probably worth a topic on its own.

Frankly, most objections to marriage being more inclusive come down to the "ick factor", or the "I don't like it so it should be banned" topic. People thought marriage between people of different races was disgusting, so they banned it. People thought that marriage between two people of the same sex was disgusting, so they banned it. Of all people, I will end this section by quoting Miley Cyrus.

I am literally open to every single thing that is consenting and doesn't involve an animal and everyone is of age. Everything that's legal, I'm down with. Yo, I'm down with any adult -- anyone over the age of 18 who is down to love me. I don't relate to being boy or girl, and I don't have to have my partner relate to boy or girl.

(Link NSFW: http://www.papermag.com/2015/06/miley_cyrus_happy_hippie_foundation.php)






Some final thoughts:

I think that there are three big fights still to win for LGBTQI(alphabet) people to win, legally:

• The first is the right to not be discriminated against. We've won on marriage equality, but in many (I think most) US states it is still legal to fire someone just because they're gay, and states are moving the wrong way on this, passing laws which forbid cities from passing anti-discrimination laws.
• The second is trans and queer rights. This is trickier, because for this to be fully implemented it means an end to patriarchy and the gender binary. It means acknowledging that people (like Miley!) may not identify as being either male or female, and that people may identify as a gender which is different to their sex. This is going to be difficult for a lot of people, because it's something not many people experience. You are born, and, for 99.999% of people, you have a penis xor a vagina. That is your sex. Your gender is your mental view of yourself, and this may not align to your sex. People who want to change from one to the other, or be identified as neither, are pretty rare, and so many people may never meet someone like that. But the past few years have been good - we've had the entry onto the public consciousness of trans people like Laverne Cox, and that helps take public perception of trans people away from drag queens. Miley is also helpful as identifying as neither male nor female.
• After all that I think will come poly rights, that is rights for people who form loving relationships of more than two people, or who simply have more than one love in their life (eg A and B are in love, as are B and C, but A is not in love with C). This I think will be hardest because it's the biggest departure from "normal", and there are no role models for it. But I hope it will come in the not too distant future, as we should all be open to love in its many and varied forms.

 

[Strathclyder]

Being a gay male myself (came out last November), I fully concur with everything TheNewNo2 has said above.

 

[TheKnightWho]

There's been a lot of media and policy help in trying to change peoples opinion on this matter. What's the next to ask for marriage?
Bother and Sister?? Three Person Mariages?? Pets?,

Marriage is not just about a group in love.
I know married couples who hate each other and non-married ones in love.
It's a traditional bonding and if it's altered with it's not traditional.
Religion is important on this matter, to say it isn't is just wrong.
It seams that this matter has put many in trouble solely because of their religious beliefs.
Made up nonsensicsl terms like "Homophobic" (homo = man, phobic = scared of) are used to stop people expressing their view.
But regardless of all that, the US government forcing all states to accept this law is undemocratic for the states involved.

Christ - I'm not even sure why I'm replying to this comment, but here goes:

Marriage not just being heterosexual does not mean anything goes. It's obviously more nuanced than that.

Tradition is not inherently good.

Marriage is not about religion, and anyway, which religion? Just because religion gets invoked in marriage doesn't mean it's necessary.

The etymology of words has little bearing on their meaning. Homophobia means what we use it as, and I'm sorry to say that you being a smart-arse doesn't change that.

Finally, there is 60%+ support for same sex marriage in the U.S.

 

[radamfi]

Gay people should have the right to be as miserable as everyone else. The real question is why anyone bothers with marriage at all. Marriage (straight or gay) causes untold misery for billions. Lawyers love marriage though as they make a fortune from it. And unmarried people continue to be discriminated against.

 

[ainsworth74]

You're quite right in saying that marriage has been "devalued", and it must surprise you then that, after Britney Spears's 24-hour marriage, gay people still want to join in!

I've been thinking that. Surely those most 'guilty' of 'devaluing' marriage are the thousands of straight couples which jump into it and then get divorced a few years down the line. The ONS reports that 30% of marriages have ended due to divorce by the fifteenth anniversary. Unless I'm very much mistaken the vows that the couple make usually include the phrase 'till death do us part'?

So who is doing more 'damage' those who are, seemingly, going back on their vows or those who want the opportunity to actually become married?

 

[radamfi]

the couple make usually include the phrase 'till death do us part'?

The fact that divorce exists surely makes marriage moot anyway, as it can be dissolved at any time, albeit with a potentially huge financial penalty.

 

[507021]

I've been thinking that. Surely those most 'guilty' of 'devaluing' marriage are the thousands of straight couples which jump into it and then get divorced a few years down the line. The ONS reports that 30% of marriages have ended due to divorce by the fifteenth anniversary. Unless I'm very much mistaken the vows that the couple make usually include the phrase 'till death do us part'?

So who is doing more 'damage' those who are, seemingly, going back on their vows or those who want the opportunity to actually become married?

A very good post Ainsworth - and a very good point made

In my opinion I think that the majority of straight couples who get divorced after around 2 or 3 years of marriage either did it too early in their relationship and realise that it isn't what they wanted after all - or one or both sides of the marriage got married far too early in their life and realise two or three years down the line that they weren't actually ready to commit and settle down into married life

There are many same sex couples in the United Kingdom that have been together for a long time but until last year were unable to get married and were only able to enter a civil partnership. I think it's a great step forward that same sex couples who have been together for many years (even decades) are now able to marry and have their marriage legally recognised in a number of countries around the world