Lets wind the clocks back a year. Lets wind them back to the Kony 2012 movement. This is a prime example of a completely useless trend that got absolutely nothing done. This is what happened. In 2003, the Invisible Children foundation was formed. Almost a decade later, they release a half-hour video about what happened in Uganda in 2003. A bunch of people saw the video and jumped on the bandwagon. Instead of doing something that would actually helped, people just joined Facebook groups and changed their profile pictures instead of doing something that might actually help, like donating money or joining the Invisible Children foundation and become active members. Nope, people just changed their profile pictures and pretended it did something.
This same thing happened with a movement aimed at ending child abuse. Instead of donating, joining a police force or volunteering at a foundation, people just changed their profile pictures and considered themselves moral human beings.
The same thing is happening with the DOMA and Proposition 8 issues. People are changing their profile pictures and thinking that it does something. Useless right?
Wrong.
The difference between those failed movements is this. With Kony 2012, and the Anti-Child Abuse movement, the solutions are things that require actual involvement and actual work. The Equality movement is different,
Some people argue that Supreme Court Justices don't care about public opinion. This is simply not true. Yes, they never go up for reelection, but that doesn't mean they don't care about what people think. When the Supreme Court Justices make a decision, they have to completely understand the implications of the decision they make. As some of the greatest legal minds of the generation, they realize that, unless they have some sort of input, they can't fully encompass all of the viewpoints and facets of the issue. That's why people write letters, asking them to consider their point of view.
In theory, the Supreme Court Justices are purely there to decide whether or not laws, propositions, bills, ect, are constitutional or not, and whether or not they conflict with previous laws, bills, ect. In a perfect system, the Supreme Court Justices would be unanimous in their decisions, but the problem is that people are people. They have biases, opinions and values they uphold that may differ from their peers. The constitution and civil rights are up for interpretation. A liberal interpretation would consider marriage between people of the same sex a civil right, and put that above the states' rights to define a family. A conservative interpretation would do just the opposite, putting the states' rights above individuals' rights.
Two sides of the coin, two different interpretations of the law, both arguably constitutional. It all comes down to which opinion, liberal or conservative prevails. The Equality movement is showing support for the liberal ideas, and there are anti-gay marriage movements showing support for the conservative view.
Besides, trying to convince the Supreme Court Justices is not the only goal of the movement. The movement is also showing support for all the gay couples in the country during this stressful time for them, their marriage hanging in the balance. Seeing a huge group of people very clearly and simply showing their support is bound to be a huge comfort, encouraging them to fight for the things they believe in. Encouraging them to fight for equal rights. Encouraging them to fight for their ideals.
Encouraging them to fight for love.
I feel like this blog post narrowed down the whole DOMA case and liberals and conservatives to a point of absurdity. DOMA itself isn't a case on gay marriage, it's a pure case on state rights and can one state override another or can a state right trump a federal uncertainty. What's interesting is that if you're hoping the gay person wins in this case than you're supporting the proposed conservative view you've noted. States rights. The significant other died after getting married in a legalized gay state, and moving to another. After that decided to collect Social Security since the partner was no longer there. The federal system didn't know have to process it (As a marriage or not) and basically suspended the social security. So in essence if you want the gay person to win then it would cause a sense of instability between the state and federal level. Declaring that if a state says something is okay then it should be follow though within the federal government. Which is clearly not the case in California and Legalized Marijuana. The only hope this case has for gay marriage is if the Supreme Court defines marriage, which they've stated they didn't want to do over and over. The whole point of this is a little useless.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the issue is less of a legal issue, and more of a moral issue. The morality of allowing an individual to marry whomever they want trumps, what I consider just a formality of states rights. If you want to take a purely legal view, I am a liberal, and individual rights are more important than states rights. The only thing that is causing the "instability" you mentioned, is the fact that states have different interpretations of marriage. If gay marriage was recognized, there would be no problem for the social security issue. These discrepancies are causing problems both on the individual side and the government side.
ReplyDeleteStates rights would still exist if the Supreme Court were to define marriage, states should have the rights to decide their own laws about marijuana, or imprisoning felons, or what have you. What the equality movement is trying to do is showing the supreme court that the people want this, that the majority of the people believe it is the moral decision to make.
Wouldn't be defining marriage at the federal level to say marriage could be between any individual be a little unfair to say, the bible belt? That's a lot of individuals that are kind of being forced different from what they strongly believe. A more neutral approach is easy, let the states define what marriage is and if that couple is in a state that recognizes gay marriage then they get social security, while in states that don't have the power to also deny that, despite the couple getting married in a legalized state. The fact is an even compromise would bring major instabilities which forces the argument to two extreme sides. I personally don't care if gay people get married, but to address it on a national level, it infringes on many states constitutions. Which in my opinion is wrong. So either the government infringes on states rights further centralizing the country in a federalist manner or they give the states more rights than previously allocated. The political impacts outreach the social ones immensely.
ReplyDeleteIf we're talking about fairness, consider this. If gay marriage were legalized,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jrngYNGNeE
this would not happen. If gay marriage was NOT legalized, gay couples would suffer a lot more than the bible belt would if it was. Gay marriage is a moral issue, it's an issue of equal rights and fair treatment, things that should not be restricted by any government.