Translate

Thursday, June 20, 2013

US Supreme Court Should Make Bold Move For Equality


The US Supreme Court has heard arguments about both DOMA and Prop H8 and could issue a ruling any day now. DOMA denies same-gender marriages recognition at the national level and has been very problematic, including for members of the US military and immigrants. Prop H8 took away the same-gender freedom to marry in California. Cases about both laws had been making their way through the courts and are now at the Supreme Court. There are many possible outcomes, some seen as more likely than others. It is possible that the Court could end up ruling next month, in June, to strike down DOMA so that same-gender marriages granted in states that currently have them will be recognized by the federal government, and letting lower court decisions striking down Prop H8 stand, so that California will again have the limited same-gender freedom to marry. It is also possible the Court may rule in a way that brings about the limited same-gender freedom to marry nationwide.

We want the US Supreme Court to make the best possible ruling, which is to recognize relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults nationwide.

The Court should rule that…


An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.

There are many reasons why the Court should do this.


1. There are American adults, and in some cases their children, suffering right now because of discriminatory laws preventing them from marrying or even just being together. If we really care about children, equality, stability, security, and valuing family, we will let people decide for themselves what kind of relationships they will have, including marriage, if they want to marry.

2. As Court precedent states, marriage is a fundamental civil right.

3. As Court precedent states, consensual sex is part of the liberty protected by due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. As Court precedent states, when the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the usual deference to the legislature is inappropriate, and the Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.

5. Freedom of association for consenting adults is a basic Constitutional right. Just as there is no good reason to ban interracial relationships or marriage, there is no good reason to ban same-gender relationships or marriages, polyamorous relationships or polygamous marriages, or consanguinamorous relationships or consanguineous marriages. There is no good reason to limit marriage to narrowly exogamous heterosexual couples.

6. Freedom of religion is a basic Constitutional right. One group’s religion should not deny the rights of other consenting adults to be together or marry. Conversely, some religions recognize or promote marriages currently banned under laws in most or all fifty states, depending on the marriages.

7. A Court ruling recognizing relationship rights and full marriage equality for all adults will provide what the Constitution requires: equal protection, rather than a piecemeal approach of this freedom to marry or that form of civil union. Equality just for some, or in some aspects but not others, or in this state but not that state, is not equality. The Constitutional principles of equal protection, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy, along with basic fairness, rational reflection, and compassion, necessitate that the US government ensure the rights of all adults.


8. The momentum within the US, neighboring countries, and the modern world is for marriage equality. Full marriage equality is inevitable, as even many opponents of equality admit. So it is pointless to drag the fight out. The Court can end the uncertainties and inconsistencies, and end the hateful, destructive, confusing, costly state-by-state fights that often pit older generations against younger generations, by putting the US on the right side of history sooner rather than later and recognizing relationship rights for all adults. More and more US states are adopting the limited same-gender freedom to marry. Many others have domestic partnerships or civil unions. Utah criminalizes polyamory while other states allow polyamory but do not protect polyamorists and deny the polygamous and polyamorous freedom to marry. Some states allow first cousins to marry monogamously without restriction, other states allow them to marry with restrictions, some states ban this freedom to marry entirely, and a couple of states even criminalize sex between first cousins. Some states allowing any adults who are closer relatives their sexual rights with each other while other states ban those rights.


9. Full marriage equality will end inequalities and confusion in immigration policies.

10. Recognizing relationships rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults is good for business, as many businesses have publicly stated. Their employees will no longer be treated as second-class citizens, their human resources departments will not have to deal with state-by-state conflicts, and employees will be free to move (temporarily or permanently) from one location to another without facing different restrictions on their relationships.

11. Government employees, including the men and women serving in our military, will not have to face different restrictions on their relationships from place to place.

Nobody should fear being arrested and imprisoned for having a consensual relationship with other adults.

Nobody should be denied the freedom to marry other consenting adults.

There are people who love each other, who have been living as spouses, even have children together, who are denied their rights, who need and want full marriage equality.

Let’s get on the right side of history sooner rather than later, and put the hate, bigotry, and bullying behind us. The US Supreme Court should protect the rights of all adults in all states.
— — —

7 comments:

  1. Whoop whoop!! Come on peeps! Push for FME sooner than later! :D Spread the word! Thanks Keith!

    ReplyDelete
  2. SCOTUS is a fallible, corruptible, inherently biased body prone to political activism. Its failure in arguments thus far to clearly discern constitutional violations of the 14th amendment's provisions for equality under the law relative to congressional legislation which enacts social-policies of federal benefits and privileges (like tax breaks and survivor benefits for the "protected" special interest group of married heterosexuals) is an outrage. Likewise the institution of marriage as a fundamental individual right that transcends race, religion or sexual orientation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The US government, corrupt as it is should be overthrown and a Stalinist figure put in its place, which would enact a nationwide Holodomor and completely purge society of unwanted elements (a large margin of the population). Only this way will you see any significant progress happen in your beloved country. Stalin got one thing right; True equality can be only achieved through equally oppressing every single strata of society from top to bottom. Discrimination, crime, and bigotry would be non-existent if everyone was under perpetual threat of being dragged off, tortured and murdered by government agencies akin to the NKVD. You can't change general opinion of a country the size of the US just by ranting on a blog. You need to literally beat it into their heads.

    Take a look at this: http://www.massviolence.org/The-NKVD-Mass-Secret-Operation-no-00447-August-1937
    This is a masterpiece of social engineering for the lack of a better word, one that the west desperately needs. Quotas on the number of people that need to be killed regionally ought to be similarly set up all across the western nations in order to achieve the desired equality we all hold dear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beyond the fact I find such violence disgusting, I feel I should add that such tactics would be the exact opposite of what people want.

      Equal discrimination isn't what I want. I don't want people around me hurt, even if some want me hurt. A cycle of discrimination wouldn't help anybody. Who could be happy if nobody could be happy?

      Other than that, just because the government does it, doesn't mean it wouldn't exist. If a government assassinates somebody, they've just committed murder. Being a government doesn't give them the right to do that. So if the government made everybody's lives hell, then that is still oppression, it just comes from a government rather than an individual. An individual is weak on their own, when it comes to oppressing others, but a government can really screw everybody over.

      Another problem with your argument is that history has shown that such oppression doesn't make people equal, not in the sense people think anyways. Oppression can bring out the worst in people, you think a gay guy could find happiness in a world where people are constantly oppressed, such happiness would not be tolerated.

      ... Anyways, that is all irrelevant, as the end does not justify the means. Even if the end was good, such oppression should be fought against. Equality rarely comes from armed conflict, nor oppression. That plan is horrible and sounds like something out of a movie with a supervillain.

      Delete
    2. Funny that you should mention Stalin on a blog dedicated to equality. A man who committed almost every atrocity in the book; the guy was worse than Hitler, both in terms of personality and the number of innocents he's responsible for slaughtering. If I recall correctly homosexuality could get you jailed for years in the SU. The freak orchestrated genocide against perceived Ukrainian nationalism by deliberately breaking an entire nation through an orchestrated mass starvation, leading to the deaths of millions in 2 years alone. He ethnically cleansed Poles, Germans and various ethnic groups just due to the possibility of dissent. He condoned mass rape during the Red Army's "liberation" of eastern Europe. He was a paranoid tyrannical psychopath, an abusive husband and father and an anti-semite to boot. One of history's biggest tragedies is that he ended up among the victors.
      His cronies were rarely any better. In Ezhov's words: "It's better to unjustly kill a 100 innocents than let one fascist spy get away."
      How one can uphold him and his deeds to a high standard is incomprehensible, which leads me to conclude that you're either:
      1. A very disturbed individual.
      2. A psycho.
      No normal and sane individual would condone murder of innocents for any reason whatsoever.

      Delete

To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.

IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE.