Disclaimer: This opinion is neither an endorsement nor a rejection of Same Sex Marriage; it seeks to expose a much bigger issue on The Impending Supreme Court’s decisions
A same sex couple walking down the streets holding hands does what to you exactly? A same sex couple kissing in the park affects you how? A same sex couple living next door does what to you again? Do you actually have an opinion or do you simply go along with others? Do you have friends who are gay? Have you ever conversed with someone who is gay? How does gay happiness affect yours? Lastly, if you’re certain they’re going to hell, great! More room for you in heaven, right? Who doesn’t like more space; well, you should therefore be happy that heaven will not be as crowded as previously thought. Pray for the Gay! Amen!
At the end of next month (June 2015), the Supreme Court – you know the nine people (called the Justices) in black robes, yep those – will publicize its decision on the issue of same sex marriage. This is a big deal. Per our constitution, whatever decision those Justices make regarding gay marriage will become the law of the land, until of course they decide to change it at some point in the future. This is a freaking big deal. Those nine people are going to decide what your behavior should be from that point on, irrespective of your position on the issue. If they vote favorably, those who are for gay marriage will rejoice; those who are against gay marriage will bitch about it. Believe it or not, that’s the good news even for those who oppose gay marriage. Most people always bitch about “stuff” they don’t like anyway; so no big deal here. But if those nine Justices decide against gay marriage, it would be a very different ballgame. Yes, those who are against it will rejoice, too bad their rejoicing will be misplaced; those who are for it would be deeply impacted by the decision. Their way of life would be altered drastically; society would regard them as, well, outcasts, which bring me to “the whole Supreme Court thing”.
For as long as the Supreme Court has been around, most of its decisions have not been stellar; in fact, most of the Supreme Court’s decisions on social matters leave one to question whether those nine Justices – with final say over every legal matter – have agendas of their own for the country. If that sounds like gibberish to you, read on for a translation.
The Supreme Court (or Judicial Branch; there are two other branches: the Executive branch (the President) and the Legislative branch (House of Representatives & Senate) was intended to be apolitical; its decisions were supposed to reflect wisdom, foresight and non-partisanship. Most unfortunately, in addition to being party inclined, the Supreme Court Justices lack the necessary wisdom to weigh in on issues of great importance such as the gay marriage. Without boring you with the details of the analysis which enables us to come to that conclusion, think for a moment why you are for or against gay marriage. Is it simply because you are a devoted Christian? Okay. Let’s suppose you are related to someone who is gay (son, brother, uncle, etc.) would you still hold the same view about the gay marriage issue?
I dread the Supreme Court’s decision on the issue of gay marriage simply because the Judicial Branch has proven time and again there is a dire need for a complete overhaul of that branch; the Justices, throughout time, have displayed a lack of compassion, a lack of understanding, a complete lack of wisdom and most disturbingly a complete lack of foresight. Case in point, 80 years after US acquired its independence from Great Britain, the Supreme Court – in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) – ruled slavery constitutional, rendering an Act of Congress banning slavery unconstitutional; put differently, the Supreme Court declared that slavery was okay; as if the Justices’ lack of wisdom wasn’t enough, they ruled that blacks had no rights whatsoever – Even animals do – . Their decision was so blatantly wrong that it incited dissent from anti-slavery sector of the country and may have been the catalyst or precursor for the Civil War.
In 1875 in the case of Minor v. Happersett (1875), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state’s laws allowed only men to vote. Freaking amazing, isn’t it?
In 1896 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson (nope, not Ferguson, MI where the unarmed teenager Michael Brown was gunned down by police officer Darren Wilson) the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional to have racially segregated accommodations and facilities; put differently, the Supreme Court said it was okay for a commuter train to have cars for blacks only and cars for whites only; it was okay for restaurants to have bathroom for blacks and bathroom for whites, and so on. The Supreme Court referred to the opinion as Separate but Equal.
If you think that perhaps the Supreme Court Justices have “wisened up” with the passage of time, they haven’t; you’re in for a big surprise. On April 22, 2014, The Supreme Court by a vote 6-2 said the state of Michigan did not violate the U.S. Constitution when its voters banned affirmative action in 2006. The same year, the Supreme Court opened the floodgate to campaign donations; there is now no limit to how much an individual donor can contribute to a political campaign. The previous year (2013), the Court overturned section five of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a mechanism in place to prevent states from implementing discriminatory practices in voting procedures. Justice Roberts argued that the country has changed, and that blanket federal protection is no longer needed to stop discrimination. Really?
The Supreme Court we are all waiting anxiously to give the final word on the issue of gay marriage thought slavery was okay, women had no right to vote, it was okay to have racially segregated accommodations and facilities, protections against institutional discrimination towards blacks is no longer needed and it is quite okay for wealthy individuals to donate unlimited amount of money to campaigns, translation: it’s okay for wealthy individuals to buy politicians.
Yep! That’s the Supreme Court we are waiting to once again “publish its opinion” on such an important issue that impacts the lives of so many. I don’t know about you, I am terrified every time a social matter of such importance is sent to the Supreme Court for a decision. But there is hope this time; if recent rulings are any guide, there is a glimpse of progress made within the Court regarding the issue of homosexuality. For instance, in 1986 in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court holds that a Georgia statute criminalizing same-sex sodomy is constitutional but in 1996 in the case of Romer v. Evans, the Court finds that an amendment to Colorado’s constitution, which would have removed legal protection of homosexuals’ rights, is unconstitutional and in 2003 in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, the Court holds that a Texas statute criminalizing same-sex conduct is unconstitutional.
How will the Supreme Court vote on Same Sex Marriage this time? The wait is killing me. The outcome terrifies me. How about you?Follow @mducheiney