Let freedom ring! Today, America shined bright. Today, America proclaimed to posterity, once again, why she is a morally great nation. Today, pause, America created a more perfect union.
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. He also delivered the final blow to one of the remaining Civil Rights battlegrounds in the Global war for human liberty – Gay Marriage Equality.
Whether you are gay, straight, not sure, or damning everyone to hell – equal protection under the law keeps you free. The very foundation of Western civilization depends on it. This article explains why…
When we say we aren’t like other nations where people are burnt alive, decapitated, drowned in a cage, or flayed because they proclaim the wrong politics, say things that enlighten others against dogma, or make love to someone unapproved by clergy – we are able to do so because we have a vehicle in our legal code that delivers freedom like a gushing artery delivers blood and deflects oppression like a shield.
That vehicle is called Equal Protection. You can read it in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Oh yes – an “amendment.” An add-on to the living legal code from a time when we as a nation realized we had to change something to straighten a crooked thing, right a wrong, moralize a corruption.
Understanding Today’s Ruling: The Real Issues
Even though upholding the right to gay marriage may seem obvious to many or perplexing and incomprehensible to others – it pays to understand how the U.S. Supreme Court came to its conclusion… because it was not arbitrary or made up.
Today’s ruling addressed two basic questions:
- The first, presented by the cases from Michigan and Kentucky, is whether the 14th Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.
- The second, presented by cases from Ohio, Tennessee, and, Kentucky, is whether the 14th Amendment requires a State to recognize a same-sex marriage licensed and performed in a State which does grant that right.
Before I proceed with answers and explanations, I have questions of my own. Why did James Obergefell have to hurt? Why was he made to suffer and feel pain and indignity? Why did the State of Ohio, full of “love thy neighbor” Christians, Sunday churchgoers, charitable contributors, and good Samaritans, have to cause this man sorrow within sorrow?
Don’t know what I’m talking about, do you?
The first case before the USSC was the matter concerning James Obergefell and his late husband, John Arthur. You see, John didn’t die from AIDS. He didn’t die because a lightening bolt struck him down from the sky. He died from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as ALS – the same disease that afflicts Stephen Hawking and caused a Facebook induced ice shortage last summer.
Three weeks before John died, the couple took a medical flight to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal at the time. John was so debilitated from ALS that they never even left the aircraft… the wedding ceremony was performed in the airplane as it literally sat parked on the Maryland tarmac. The couple then returned to Ohio.
After John passed, the State of Ohio refused to name James as John’s surviving spouse on the death certificate – thus compelling them to remain strangers, even in death. James described this as a pain that was “hurtful for the rest of time.”
Now you may think James was a bit of a drama queen from the comfort of your sofa, office, or wherever you are reading this and sipping a latte, but the man is entitled to his feelings, especially those caused by the State of Ohio following the death of his most beloved.
Rather than comforting the mourning, the State of Ohio shoved a stake in his heart and twisted it. They kicked him hard when he was down, broken, and in wretched, incurable pain… moments where 10 Commandments style love thy neighbor compassion is supposed to kick in hardcore.
In my upbringing as a Jewish Man, the Torah teaches us to give love to people when they are down, to aid them when they hurt, and to see them through the mourning process with gentle, loving kindness.
If James had a vagina instead of penis that is exactly what would have happened. But he does not.
Unfortunately for the State of Ohio, James is a man and he is endowed with the very rocks that they relied upon to kick him when he was down. But he didn’t stay down for long. He stood up and fought back: He sued the State of Ohio.
I admire James Obergefell. I respect a man who grabs the ankle of the foot on his neck, stands up, and pushes back.
So here we are:
- Was it unconstitutional for Ohio to have a legal system where James and John were denied the ability to marry?
- Was it unconstitutional for Ohio to deny recognition of James’ and John’s marriage in Maryland?
“Under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Most importantly, these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.”
As a premise, it is extremely important to understand that we have a living legal system. It is not written in stone to die an arcane and boring death. Rather, our civilization is premised on concepts that have evolving applications as humans live on. One such concept is liberty. Another is self-determination. A third is the concept of free choice.
“The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the 14h Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”
“When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.” That claim originates in society: In workplaces, in social clubs, on the streets, at cocktail parties, and ultimately – in our courthouses.
That principle applies here. “If rights were defined solely by those who exercised them in the past, then there would never be any progression in the law that coincides with society’s progression in wisdom and knowledge. For instance, slavery would never have been outlawed. Women would have never been granted the right to vote. Handicapped persons would be left to fend for themselves – so what if they can’t wheel their annoying chair into a public bathroom.