There is no constitutional or "fundamental right to marry" - at least to mean a government sanctioned marriage. But neither should our government be allowed to recognize only marriages between straight people, and attach benefits to that status, while denying the same to gay people. either take it away from everybody (never gonna happen), or give it to everybody (eventually gonna happen).
the United States Constitution does not guarantee any "fundamental right to marry." the Equal Protection Clause, however, does prohibit government-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual-orientation, etc. (subject to varying levels of "judicial scrutiny")
government-recognized marriages were a public policy decision rather than a constitutional issue. you can legislate benefits that go with that "official" marriage, so you certainly can legislate it away. but that's never gonna happen, because now you're pissing off the entire heterosexual married voting population. the constitution does prohibit government-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. so eventually, we are gonna have to recognize gay marriages and confer the same benefits attached to official marriages to gay couples. its only a matter of when, just like "separate but equal" eventually going by the wayside.
"fundamental right to marry" is a nice rallying call, though, the same way we bandy about "defending our freedoms" when in many cases, its not so much about freedoms than securing vital national security interests (to include commercial and resources - so "defending our way of life" would be more accurate, really). hackneyed.
* * * * *
overheard: "Women in DC tend to pretty liberal nowadays. With such a well educated demographic, many women tend to date casually." Connecting the dots: Liberal = well-educated = non-monogamous. Can people get any more presumptuous? BARF.
I have a bigger issue with liberal = well-educated (and therefore, conservatives = no as well-educated?), even if academia at colleges and universities have a reputation for leaning left.
There are many conservatives from Ivy Leagues etc. and many of those in government from 2000-2008 were acknowledged to be exceptionally bright if not arrogantly so, criticized retroactively not for lacking smarts but for lacking wisdom.
And I don't see how well-educated has anything to do with dating casually. People like to fuck, period. Its just whether you grew up with socio-cultural norms that frown upon casual relationships and whether you choose to buck those norms. It isn't a more intelligent or even wiser decision either way (I mean ... is it wiser if you have a greater risk of STD's and unwanted pregnancy? I think not.)
Sandra Day O'Connor - quoting Ruth Bader Ginsburg, really - "At the end of the day, a wise man and a wise woman will make the same decision."
Sonia Sotomayor: "I disagree ... I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Presumptuous, and
RIDICULOUS!
Diversity of viewpoints and experiences is good for the whole ... but to presume that one person's difference from others is inherently superior?
No comments:
Post a Comment