Apart from that, homosexuals still do not retain national civil rights equality. And America does not grant total marriage equality. In fact, the Supreme Court ruling contains a statement I find supremely troubling: "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. "
Two people marrying for love, fidelity, family? Since when was the government charged with defining what marriage was? If I were a polygamist, I would find this ruling troubling. As I'm not, and I'm simply someone who sees legal marriage as an arrangement of finances and rights, this is still troubling.
I got married with that in mind, my legal marriage was performed before the marriage ceremony. I'm in the process of undoing that legal commitment. The relationship is over and the two were never the same thing in my way of thinking. To hear that my federal government disagrees is... disenheartening. It suggests that my marriage was null and void from the moment of my husband's infidelity, which means that not only does the last year not count, but the last six do not. I don't think that's the government's right to dictate.
Yes, it's arguing semantics, but that's the entire purpose of the US Supreme Court. That's what they do.
The spirit of the words, that homosexuals have the rights to marriage, I understand, but I worry that the wording was made specifically to limit marriage to two people. Why? What possible reason could anyone need for marriage rights to be limited to one person? That's a personal decision. If it's because they don't want people getting extra tax breaks, well, there's no limit on the amount of children a person can have.
It's not enough. And it's a limiting decision.
Of course I'm glad that all marriages will be recognised equally under federal law, I just wish the ruling had not gone further.
No comments:
Post a Comment