My thoughts on the recent Supreme Court decision to extend gay marriage to every state are complicated. First, while my religion may hold homosexual relations to be spiritually harmful, not everyone's religion expresses the same view. As the 11th article of faith says, "let them worship how, where, or what they may." So that aspect of the decision sits fine with me.
Secondly, the laws of several states are designed to refuse to recognize certain marriages performed in other states. It's fundamentally problematic. Those state laws definitely needed to be struck down. If one state doesn't issue drivers licenses until age 18, that doesn't mean that they refuse to recognize the drivers licenses from states that issue them to 16-year-olds. Same idea for marriage.
But, just like drivers licenses, states fundamentally set the rules for marriages within their borders. That's the reason the Edmunds-Tucker Act only made polygamy illegal in the territories of the US. (That act had less to do with polygamy and more to do with just disenfranchising the church. It was never meant to be used against any other group, polygamous or not.) So this ruling carries a serious change of philosophy about the separation of federal vs. state powers. I'm not as happy about that aspect of the ruling.
It's a mixed bag, but I think it's more positive than negative.
No comments:
Post a Comment