As many of you probably know, the Supreme Court is currently arguing over whether states should be able to pass laws outlawing gay marriage. Chief Justice John Roberts has made an interesting argument in favor of same-sex marriage. Roberts has suggested that arguments over sexual orientation may not even be necessary. He has argued that the issue may actually be sexual discrimination, stating that "if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can't. And the difference is based on their different sex. Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?"
Though this viewpoint will most likely not be central in the final argument, I found it interesting that Roberts has moved the issue away from any moral or traditional arguments over same-sex marriage. It reminded me of the case Roe v. Wade that we studied, where the court ruled that banning abortions restricted a doctor's right to privacy. Both this argument and Roberts' argument do not focus on whether the issue at hand is "right" or "wrong;" instead, they shift the focus to a different, more readily agreed upon issue.
HI ANALISA!
ReplyDeleteI don't think this was supposed to be even mildly amusing, but it's funny because it means that whenever people argue against (or even for) same-sex marriage, they're arguing that two people of any sexual orientation but the same gender can't get married. I love that even in the most controversial topics of any time, there are always loopholes that show that any conflict has a solution; you just have to look at it from a new perspective.