The image above is from the Texas Democratic Party. I have not used it before, because even though a federal court had declared Texas' ban on same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional, the state was still not allowing those marriages (in the hope the decision would be overturned by the Supreme Court). But I proudly use the image today. The Supreme Court has made its decision -- and it came down on the side of equal rights for all citizens.
I have to admit I was nervous waiting for the decision, but not really surprised. I have said several times on this blog that I thought the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia demanded the Supreme Court make this decision. In that decision, the court said marriage was a "constitutional right" -- and therefore could not be denied to interracial couples. If interracial couples had the constitutional right to be married, how could that constitutional right be denied to same-sex couples?
It couldn't, and Justice Kennedy used the Loving v. Virginia decision as the basis of this Supreme Court decision. As he wrote, constitutional rights cannot be decided by state legislatures or by a vote of the majority in any state. These rights are guaranteed, and therefore must be protected by the court.
Some states, ruled by teabagger politicians, will probably try to delay the implementation of this decision, but that doesn't matter. It is now LAW, and the federal courts will quickly bring them into compliance. And that will happen quickly, because there is no legitimate reason for delay.
I know some are complaining the this decision tramples on their religious freedom rights. That is ludicrous. No one is being forced into a same-sex marriage, no minister or church is being forced to perform those marriages, and someone else's same-sex marriage does nothing to harm anyone's marriage (or the institution of marriage). The only thing this decision does is give same-sex couples the same rights that opposite-sex couples have in this country.
This decision was a giant step toward the granting of equal rights to all U.S. citizens -- but it is not the end of the fight for those rights. There is still much work to be done in assuring equal rights for the LGBT community, as well as minorities and women. Now we must finish the job.
if they try and stop them, they're opening themselves up to a mess of lawsuits that they will lose..so fuck em.
ReplyDeleteI know it's a little early to bring this up but now that LGBT folks can marry...they can also get divorced. That brings up the age old question, who gets custody of the children? Currently, the 'mother' gets custody or, rarely, there is shared custody. But usually the courts give majority custody to the mom. Does that now mean that the courts will have to actually determine which parent is best suited to have custody instead of the knee-jerk reaction that moms are automatically the best? I have seen too many divorces where 'mom' has been given full custody and the dad is left with visitation and child support and a disappointment that the court system is partial to moms. If there are two moms or two dads, how will that split be determined? I have always thought that judges were biased in favor of moms so now how will they decide? I have seen so many friends and family feel they have to choose sides in cases like this and are torn apart as a result. (Full disclosure: I am a mom, never been in a custody battle, and my child is grown.) Like I said, this may be too early but there will be so many legal questions going forward that haven't even been thought about because of our antiquated laws concerning the dissolution of marriage.
ReplyDeleteThis may actually be a good thing, because as you say, the interests of the child may be taken more into account. Currently, age has a lot to do with it -- and the younger the child, the more the court seems to prefer the mother. Personally, I think joint custody is a good thing, unless one parent is clearly the better parent.
ReplyDeleteMany courts already consider the best interests of the child. I was a child of divorce, and my father was granted full custody of me and my brothers. I have also sat on a civil jury where our task was to decide which parent should have custody --and we left the child in the father's custody.
Not sure why, but I was not all that worried about this decision. Kennedy had penned the other two major gay rights decisions, and I felt pretty confident he would write this one, too.
ReplyDeleteTo address Gra*ma's point, there are a lot of things that are going to have to be addressed by the state legislator in the family law code next time it meets. And they are going to have to do it in a way that doesn't show the hostility they might otherwise show.
How names are going to be handled, for instance. Child custody should not be too bad, because technically, neither husband or wife is supposed to have preference now under Texas law. However, the fact that all of these kids are probably going to be adopted kids is going to change the dynamic of things a bit once divorces come along.
To is not completely over. There are a lot of other things to iron out!