I have written many commentaries over the years on the issues the Supreme Court addressed in this case. Here, for the record, are excerpts from just a few of them.
___________________
From “Same-Sex Marriage Now Legal in New York,” June 27, 2011, with respect to same-sex marriages:
I believe it is a self-evident truth that not allowing gays to marry is an even greater violation of the fundamental equal/civil rights all citizens should enjoy than not allowing Blacks to vote.
- From “Supreme Court to Rule on Same-Sex Marriage,” December 10, 2012, with respect to Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):
All you need to know is that the same legal principle that compelled the Court to rule in Loving v. Virginia (1967) that Blacks and Whites have a fundamental right to marry each other will compel it to rule that gays have that (equal) right too.
Not to mention that the Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that gays have the right under the Fourteenth Amendment to engage in consensual sexual conduct ‘as part of the liberty protected’ by the Constitution. Clearly the right to engage in that conduct ‘within the bounds of holy matrimony’ is the natural, logical, moral, historical, and cultural extension of that liberty.
In other words, the Constitution as well as the Court’s own precedents should compel it to emulate the unanimous ruling in Loving in favor of same-sex marriages. Unfortunately, the political nature of this Court is such that most pundits are predicting it could rule 5-4 either way depending on how the one (purportedly) centrist justice, Anthony Kennedy, casts his vote…
If the Court rules that same-sex marriages are constitutionally protected, all states would be obligated not only to recognize them but also to accord them all of the marital rights, privileges, and benefits traditional marriages enjoy.
- And From “Holy Matrimony! Catholic Ireland Becomes Trailblazer for Gay Rights,” May 26, 2015, with respect to the fundamental right to marry:
The right to marry is as fundamental as any human right. And, as the late Justice William Brennan (of the U.S. Supreme Court) might have opined, it offends all notions of fundamental fairness, which is essential to the very concept of justice, for members of any group to have the exercise of their fundamental rights subject to a referendum.
___________________
The Supreme Court has just affirmed my view on all counts:
States cannot keep same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their unions, the Supreme Court says in a ruling that for months has been the focus of speculation. The ruling was made by a 5-4 decision…
For supporters of same-sex marriages, today’s ruling comes as a long-awaited bookend to the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] and required the U.S. government to provide the same benefits to both gay and heterosexual couples.
(NPR, June 26, 2015)
That said, I was wrong in thinking that Chief Justice Roberts would reinforce his opinion on Obamacare by doing the right thing in this case as well. He did not – choosing instead to execute a proverbial splitting of the political baby.
In fairness, though, he did say during his nomination hearing that he sees his judicial role as that of umpire. And, as umpires are wont to do, he probably decided to call one for the liberals (Obamacare) and one for the conservatives (same-sex marriages) to balance what he knew would be the party-line vote of the others. Which only reinforces my opinion about Supreme Court justices being little more than political executioners in judicial garb.
It took centrist Justice Kennedy, voting along with the Court’s four liberal justices, to make this historic ruling for equal/civil rights.
Related commentaries:
same-sex marriages…