Landmark Supreme Court Cases

[Saint Sims]

Aljazeera has done an amazing job outlining exactly what's ahead of both the Supreme Court and the United States as a collective.

Essentially, the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the constitutionality of marriage as an equal an unanimous right for all peoples regardless of orientation as well as the controversial "Defense of Marriage Act" signed in by former President Clinton.

As the news piece states, no rulings are expected until as early as June but no doubt the hearings themselves will have a profound effect on both the Nation and globe; or so we can hope.

What are your guys' and gals' thoughts?

 

[veryfluffypillows]

I am sincerely hoping SCOTUS rules in favor of gay marriage. With majority public support and social media gaining coverage by the minute (especially Facebook) any ruling would be placed in history.  

[Keakealani]

It's probably not a popular opinion here, but while I am personally a fully supporter of the idea behind marriage equality, I am not entirely convinced that a ruling right now would be good. For one, there are procedural issues with both cases, and overriding the traditional limits of procedure that restrict the Supreme Court could set up some less-than-ideal precedent when the other side uses it in favor of ruling on cases with no aggrieved party (which I think is what is essentially happening here).

Clearly, marriage restrictions to hetero couples is both immoral and pretty likely illegal based on matters of privacy and due process, but I believe, in the end, that it should be a legislative issue, not necessarily one decided by the courts, at least not at this point. I feel as if the political backlash of what would be seen on the right as activism on the part of the Supreme Court Justices would result in a lot of eventual long-term losses even in the face of short-term gains, just as we see with the abortion fights in this country in light of Roe v. Wade, or even resegregation in the face of Brown v. Board of Education.

In addition, there is some very troubling rhetoric coming out of this fight, especially the sentiment that marriage equality is the "last frontier" or that marriage equality will secure rights for all LGBT people. While it is clearly a major step, and can contribute significantly to normalizing non-hetero relationships and challenging gender essentialist stereotypes, I think it's folly to think of it as a literal last frontier - we haven't even gotten basic non-discrimination legislation or comprehensive adoption rights passed in the United States, and there are countries throughout the world that are far behind, with LGBT people struggling against laws that execute people for non-hetero sex, much less attempting to get married or have a life free from the fear of discrimination.

Marriage is complicated. Marriage is still an essentially privileged institution that favors people who abide by a relatively traditional, normalized type of relationship. It favors people in monogamous, committed relationships as socially "better" than those who choose other ways of life. Allowing society to have these separate "classes" of people, even if it includes more LGBT people, doesn't achieve the end goal of equality for all. And I say that as someone who is looking toward a wedding in just a few months. I am excited to commit myself to another person in what amounts to a fairly traditional marriage situation, but I hate to do so in a way that inherently places value in my type of relationship over other people's relationships or lack thereof.

I mean, it's not that marriage equality isn't a big and important step. It is. I just hope that history plays out in a generally positive way, and that people aren't too short-sighted when we think about one political victory in the face of other potential downfalls.  

[Taeryyn]

Keakealani

It's probably not a popular opinion here, but while I am personally a fully supporter of the idea behind marriage equality, I am not entirely convinced that a ruling right now would be good. For one, there are procedural issues with both cases, and overriding the traditional limits of procedure that restrict the Supreme Court could set up some less-than-ideal precedent when the other side uses it in favor of ruling on cases with no aggrieved party (which I think is what is essentially happening here).

Clearly, marriage restrictions to hetero couples is both immoral and pretty likely illegal based on matters of privacy and due process, but I believe, in the end, that it should be a legislative issue, not necessarily one decided by the courts, at least not at this point. I feel as if the political backlash of what would be seen on the right as activism on the part of the Supreme Court Justices would result in a lot of eventual long-term losses even in the face of short-term gains, just as we see with the abortion fights in this country in light of Roe v. Wade, or even resegregation in the face of Brown v. Board of Education.

In addition, there is some very troubling rhetoric coming out of this fight, especially the sentiment that marriage equality is the "last frontier" or that marriage equality will secure rights for all LGBT people. While it is clearly a major step, and can contribute significantly to normalizing non-hetero relationships and challenging gender essentialist stereotypes, I think it's folly to think of it as a literal last frontier - we haven't even gotten basic non-discrimination legislation or comprehensive adoption rights passed in the United States, and there are countries throughout the world that are far behind, with LGBT people struggling against laws that execute people for non-hetero sex, much less attempting to get married or have a life free from the fear of discrimination.

Marriage is complicated. Marriage is still an essentially privileged institution that favors people who abide by a relatively traditional, normalized type of relationship. It favors people in monogamous, committed relationships as socially "better" than those who choose other ways of life. Allowing society to have these separate "classes" of people, even if it includes more LGBT people, doesn't achieve the end goal of equality for all. And I say that as someone who is looking toward a wedding in just a few months. I am excited to commit myself to another person in what amounts to a fairly traditional marriage situation, but I hate to do so in a way that inherently places value in my type of relationship over other people's relationships or lack thereof.

I mean, it's not that marriage equality isn't a big and important step. It is. I just hope that history plays out in a generally positive way, and that people aren't too short-sighted when we think about one political victory in the face of other potential downfalls.

I wish we could tip posts in guilds. gaia_gaiagold  

[Keakealani]

Taeryyn

Keakealani

blah blah blah words

I wish we could tip posts in guilds. gaia_gaiagold

Aww, just the affirmation that I'm not totally crazy is enough ^_^ It's so complicated, though. Marriage equality is a huge deal for a lot of people, and I hate to downplay that, but I am always wary of the ways it can end up biting people in the a**. I can't wait (/s) for all the ways conservatives try to be bigots in other ways once marriage rights are secured. >.>  

[Taeryyn]

Keakealani

Aww, just the affirmation that I'm not totally crazy is enough ^_^ It's so complicated, though. Marriage equality is a huge deal for a lot of people, and I hate to downplay that, but I am always wary of the ways it can end up biting people in the a**. I can't wait (/s) for all the ways conservatives try to be bigots in other ways once marriage rights are secured. >.>

I agree. As awesome as it would be to get marriage rights quickly, it's probably wiser to obtain them in a way that's solid and secure, with no loop-holes or other potential negative consequences. The other point you mentioned, about how marriage effectively creates a separate, almost more-respected relationship status for monogamous couples has also been mentioned to me before, and I know it's a huge issue for many people.

I have friends who are in favour of delegislating marriage entirely, which sounds like an incredible headache on so many levels. I understand where they're coming from, though, even if I don't agree with the idea as they propose it.

I'm not American myself, and same-sex marriage is legal in my country, and has been so at a federal level since 2005. In our case, it was first recognized provincially for some (as the result of court rulings), then by the Supreme Court of Canada (who decided that any bans on same-sex unions were unconstitutional), and then finished with the Civil Marriage Act.  

[Keakealani]

Taeryyn

Keakealani

Aww, just the affirmation that I'm not totally crazy is enough ^_^ It's so complicated, though. Marriage equality is a huge deal for a lot of people, and I hate to downplay that, but I am always wary of the ways it can end up biting people in the a**. I can't wait (/s) for all the ways conservatives try to be bigots in other ways once marriage rights are secured. >.>

I agree. As awesome as it would be to get marriage rights quickly, it's probably wiser to obtain them in a way that's solid and secure, with no loop-holes or other potential negative consequences. The other point you mentioned, about how marriage effectively creates a separate, almost more-respected relationship status for monogamous couples has also been mentioned to me before, and I know it's a huge issue for many people.

I have friends who are in favour of delegislating marriage entirely, which sounds like an incredible headache on so many levels. I understand where they're coming from, though, even if I don't agree with the idea as they propose it.

I'm not American myself, and same-sex marriage is legal in my country, and has been so at a federal level since 2005. In our case, it was first recognized provincially for some (as the result of court rulings), then by the Supreme Court of Canada (who decided that any bans on same-sex unions were unconstitutional), and then finished with the Civil Marriage Act.

Yeah. I am worried that a lot of people think all their problems will be solved with one court case, but the reality is that some combination of regional (state/province etc.) laws, federal legislation, and court rulings, in combination, are probably the safest way to actually achieve full rights in a relatively non-loophole-y way.

And yeah. I am not personally someone who is involved in nonmonogamous relationships, and if I did I am not positive that I would want or need that recognized in a legal way if I did, but it seems like something that would be problematic for those people, especially since my experiences with the queer community have been kind of mixed with things like polyamory or intentional singledom. It's something I'd like to have open as an option, in the future, and I'd love to be able to do so in a way that had legal recognition/protection and, possibly more importantly, social acceptance. And those can't necessarily happen if we try to build up monogamous two-person relationships as the gold standard, especially if too many LGBT people get too comfy with maintaining that status quo.

And, like you, I can see the point of delegislating marriage entirely, but that sounds so "separate but equal"-y to me that I have a hard time conceptualizing how it doesn't end up still being discriminatory. Plus, of course, the practical implementation of that, with a gazillion and a half laws that reference marriage or various related things...

Anyway, yeah. It's so complicated, but it's something that I just want to emphasize, especially to the queer community, that we can't get too comfortable with our victories! As you surely know, marriage equality didn't necessarily eradicate all forms of discrimination in Canada, despite being federally legal for years - it's way more complicated than any one issue.  

[Katana left the site]

Taeryyn

Keakealani

It's probably not a popular opinion here, but while I am personally a fully supporter of the idea behind marriage equality, I am not entirely convinced that a ruling right now would be good. For one, there are procedural issues with both cases, and overriding the traditional limits of procedure that restrict the Supreme Court could set up some less-than-ideal precedent when the other side uses it in favor of ruling on cases with no aggrieved party (which I think is what is essentially happening here).

Clearly, marriage restrictions to hetero couples is both immoral and pretty likely illegal based on matters of privacy and due process, but I believe, in the end, that it should be a legislative issue, not necessarily one decided by the courts, at least not at this point. I feel as if the political backlash of what would be seen on the right as activism on the part of the Supreme Court Justices would result in a lot of eventual long-term losses even in the face of short-term gains, just as we see with the abortion fights in this country in light of Roe v. Wade, or even resegregation in the face of Brown v. Board of Education.

In addition, there is some very troubling rhetoric coming out of this fight, especially the sentiment that marriage equality is the "last frontier" or that marriage equality will secure rights for all LGBT people. While it is clearly a major step, and can contribute significantly to normalizing non-hetero relationships and challenging gender essentialist stereotypes, I think it's folly to think of it as a literal last frontier - we haven't even gotten basic non-discrimination legislation or comprehensive adoption rights passed in the United States, and there are countries throughout the world that are far behind, with LGBT people struggling against laws that execute people for non-hetero sex, much less attempting to get married or have a life free from the fear of discrimination.

Marriage is complicated. Marriage is still an essentially privileged institution that favors people who abide by a relatively traditional, normalized type of relationship. It favors people in monogamous, committed relationships as socially "better" than those who choose other ways of life. Allowing society to have these separate "classes" of people, even if it includes more LGBT people, doesn't achieve the end goal of equality for all. And I say that as someone who is looking toward a wedding in just a few months. I am excited to commit myself to another person in what amounts to a fairly traditional marriage situation, but I hate to do so in a way that inherently places value in my type of relationship over other people's relationships or lack thereof.

I mean, it's not that marriage equality isn't a big and important step. It is. I just hope that history plays out in a generally positive way, and that people aren't too short-sighted when we think about one political victory in the face of other potential downfalls.

I wish we could tip posts in guilds. gaia_gaiagold

I second this.