Politics meddle with love: Supreme Court considers same-sex marriage

posted in: Opinion | 0

Somewhere in this country, right now as you’re reading this, there is a couple madly in love who cannot legally get married. The simple reason for this restriction on their relationship moving any further is because they are gay. 

In 2014, all of American history that the majority of the states allowed same-sex marriage. At the end of year, 35 states allowed same-sex marriage. But 2015 could be the year that leads to final nationwide decisions.

On Tuesday, April 28, the Supreme Court dedicated two and a half hours of their busy schedule to specifically discuss same-sex marriage. Protesters and supporters alike waited outside, holding signs in one group and rainbow flags in the other.

While inside, the justices argued back and forth, fairly evenly split. While this is not a political opinion segment and should not cover political issues, politics have meddled into LGBTQ issues for years.

The matter of LGBTQ members being granted equal human rights should not be up for political debate. But since it is, there has to be those who stand against it. Luckily, allies represent and stand up for LGBTQ people even in the Supreme Court.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, also known as “the Notorious RBG,” summed up the argument for same-sex marriage by calling everyone, regardless of their political affiliations, to reconsider why we haven’t legalized equal rights for all citizens yet.

“Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this court’s decision in 1982 when Louisiana’s Head and Master Rule was struck down. Would that be a choice that state should [still] be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?” Ginsburg was quoted, saying the past should stay in the past for a reason.

Ginsburg also argued against the age-old argument that same-sex marriage must be banned because marriage is for those who are able to procreate. 

She reasoned that a couple in their 70s would not be denied the right to marry despite the fact that they would not be able to procreate.

Not to mention, this world is overpopulating faster than an invasive species of rabbits and there is no true need for procreation or event to promote it. Lastly, I imagine Ginsburg set down the gavel with a long sigh in bore of the constant argument as she ended with the idea that no one is getting hurt by this decision. 

“All of the incentives, all of the benefits that marriage affords would still be available. So you’re not taking away anything from heterosexual couples,” she said. “They would have the very same incentive to marry including all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now.”

A nationwide legalization of LGBTQ rights to marry and adopt would be helpful, not harmful. Thus, we can be hopeful that 2015 truly holds the horizon of equality in our homeland. 

If not for someone you know, then at least for that couple stuck in love and restricted from marriage somewhere in this country still as you finish reading this article.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *