Friday, June 26, 2015

SCOTUS Rules on Marriage


For John, BLUF.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



We have a ruling from the US Supreme Court on same sex marriage, OBERGEFELL v. HODGES.
Held:  The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.
Justice Kennedy, who wrote the opinion, seemed to write with blinders on.  He writes:
(a) Before turning to the governing principles and precedents, it is appropriate to note the history of the subject now before the Court.

(1) The history of marriage as a union between two persons of the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases.  To the respondents, it would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extended to same-sex couples.  But the petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities, as illustrated by the petitioners’ own experiences.

(2) The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change.
Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution.  Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.

Hello!  How many plural marriages exist, de facto, if not de jure, here in the United States?  Let alone across the globe.  Are we an immigrant nation that will not allow cultures to flow into our nation?  What about the degree of consanguinity issue?

We are not at the end of this issue.

Justice Kennedy was correct when he said, in his ruling,

Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order.
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

  Former Commonwealth Chief Justice M Marshall had the same problem.

3 comments:

lance said...

If Joe loves Jill they get married. If Linda loves Jill they can't get married. Why is that right?

C R Krieger said...

I am totally confused by the first comment.  I thought SCOTUS was very clear.  Josephine may marry Jill.  However, if Joe is married to Jill, Linda can not join the relationship.  If that right?

Regards  —  Cliff

lance said...

It seems as if the Court has made a pretty simple decision in support of equal rights and what is hard to understand why the vote was close, except for the doctrinaire position of some justices.