The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt a swift and decisive blow to those who would seek to use the rule of law to prevent same-sex marriages. In a five-state decision, it has been seemingly universally declared that not only should these marriages be legal, but that it is, in point of fact, unconstitutional to prevent them.
This is not a victory for gay rights.
This is a victory for equal rights under the law for all Americans. Period.
By way of the nature of this decision, it does, however, remove any legal oppression or discrimination for a particular minority group; that is, those in the gay community who wish to be legally married in any state.
This issue highlights the necessity of a federal branch of government, an overseeing body that prevents a majority from infringing upon the rights of a minority, whether in municipality, state-run, or national government. This is, after all, the United States of America, not the People’s Republic of Individual Sovereign States.
Utah would do well to take this under advisement for this issue and others going forward. Others like, say, a frivolously purported, unethically funded, and shamelessly partisan lawsuit to regain public lands; topic for another day.
When it is broken down to its core level, the opposition to gay marriage is premised in a moral paradigm steeped in religious fundamentals rather than a moral paradigm steeped in knowable and Constitutional law.
What I mean to say here is that while the right to espouse religious morals is and should remain intact in America, at the end of the day, its premise and authors’ authority are taken on faith, not knowable facts. In other words, religion is like opinion. You are entitled to practice it. Not to impose it on others.
And that, friends, is the rub.
The Supreme Court kicked the ball down the road today. It is far from over. In essence, the court chose not to hear the appeals put forth which, by default, makes the states’ federal court rulings stand. What remains to be seen is if, eventually, the Supreme Court will hear an actual case and make civil unions, once and for all, a Constitutional right for everyone, regardless of gender.
Note something of great importance here, though. What is not being addressed is the morality of the issue. Only the legality. In a state, and in a country for that matter, where free will and freedom of choice is championed, regardless of taste or religious preference, this simply has to be.
Can you imagine what the local response would be were a case to be brought forth against those who practice a faith (pick one, it does not matter), whereby those engaging in it were told they no longer could because some found it offensive? Or dare I say it, outright bullshit?
Suppose someone were to make the case that beliefs matter. That if one believes in earnest that a plethora of virgins awaits him after setting off a bomb, if one believes that all who do not share his faith are rejecting their God to not only their detriment, but to the offense of his followers, if one believes they have the one true, but empirically unprovable faith, that all should fall in line up to and including mandating legislation to support and enforce those beliefs…
Suppose someone were to make the case that those who espoused such beliefs had to prove their validity beyond mere faith and empirically prove them beyond reasonable doubt else be dismissed carte blanche as not only nonsense, but dangerous beliefs that lead to discrimination and injustice.
Although I would be hard-pressed to believe that any religious person recognizes it, it is a slippery slope they are on and would do well to get off it before the attention turns in their direction in this manner.
All of this is to say that when a group espouses morality as it sees it on another, and attempts to legislate it, it opens itself to the same discrimination it purports in so doing.
I need to address something, however, in the spirit of honest and rigorous dialogue. While I may stand firm with the decision of the high court today and while I wholeheartedly support the right to marry for everyone, I do think the morality of it is still a reasonable question.
Homosexuality is a behavior. As is heterosexuality or bisexuality. When we say we are one of these, we are not describing our indigenous being. That would be homo sapien. Identifying with a behavior often casts the impression that the behavior defines what we are, not what we do.
So, suppose we are in agreement on this. That while homo sapien defines what we are and that words like “homosexual” or “heterosexual” define how we behave sexually, the question could be reasonably raised, is any sexual behavior immoral? Suppose we were to run the gamut and look at all sexual behaviors. Bestiality? Necrophilia? Pedophilia?
Do not mistake me here. I do not mean to infer that one necessarily equates to the other, or leads to it. Nor do I mean to infer that in some instances, the rights of consent to do not play a role in the morality of a behavior.
I do mean, however, to open for discussion what aptly comes forth with such a question, which is, we have a standard. All of us. Where do we get that standard, and when and where should it be one that applies to all?
It will be interesting to see the byproduct of this decision here in Utah. Will this state abide the law or will it seek ways around it? Will this open the door for the legalization of polygamy (another behavior)?
Regardless, it was a historic and, in my opinion, by default just decision by the Supreme Court and an overall win for free will, freedom of choice, and equal rights under the law in America.
See you out there.
