WATCH: The Best and Worst Parts of the Supreme Court Marriage Ruling

[news]

[news]

It's been less than 50 years since the Stonewall riots and the foundation of the modern LGBT liberation movement. And here we are, with marriage equality newly-recognized from coast to coast. It's amazing.

But June isn't just the anniversary of Stonewall. It's the anniversary of the ruling that overturned the federal marriage ban, and the ruling that ended the criminalization of homosexuality. And it's close to the anniversary the ruling that for the first time extended equal protection to LGBTs.

All of those cases were written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. And now, he's given us a decision that establishes the freedom to marry as a fundamental right. Five justices agreed with Kennedy, and four disagreed for various reasons that really do not hold up. Let's take a look at how Kennedy's decision works, and then talk about why the dissent is so wrong.



Kennedy's ruling is based on four ideas: freedom includes the freedom to choose who you marry, marriage is vital for relationships, marriage protects kids and families and marriage is a cornerstone of American society.

Central to Kennedy's ruling is this:

The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth 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.

In other words, the Constitution's set up so that as we become a more enlightened society, we can improve our own laws to reflect that enlightenment.

Ultimately, Kennedy wrote,

Marriage allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations. The Constitution grants ... that right.

Five justices agreed, four didn't.

Essentially, the dissenters believe that marriage isn't a fundamental right, or that it is for everyone except same-sex couples, which is very convenient.



Roberts calls marriage bans a "decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history," and an "unvarying social institution enduring over all of recorded history."

Well, that's just wrong. As we know, marriage has varied a lot. Virtually nothing about marriage has persisted throughout every culture. It is in a state of constant change and, though gradual, improvement.

Thomas has what may be the strangest dissent. He says that human dignity is innate and can't be granted or taken away by the government. And here's where he goes with that:

Human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity ... because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity...

Did Thomas just mean to defend slavery? Probably not, but he also probably didn't mean to suggest that banning marriage is similar to slavery and internment.

What he means, is that if you only acknowledge the personal, internal aspect of dignity, then yeah, no one can take that away. But dignity has external qualities as well. Slaves were definitely deprived of something, for example their freedom and very recognition of their humanity. And it seems like some amount of dignity would go along with that.

Roberts, meanwhile, admits that marriage changes, writing "the 'history of marriage is one of both continuity and change,' but the core meaning of marriage has endured."

And there's the fundamental disagreement. The core meaning of marriage. Is it, as Kennedy says, an embodiment of "the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family"?

Or, is it as Alito says, "the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can do: procreate."

I don't know. Between those two -- love fidelity devotion sacrifice and family, or procreate -- which sounds more like a wedding vow to you? -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.











More...