Same-Sex Marriage
The Supreme Courts of New York and Georgia yesterday ruled that it was appropriate for the legislatures to confine marriage to its traditional one-man/one-woman pairing. The court in NY claimed that the legislators could reasonably believe that this would benefit 'the children'.
The Court's refusal to challenge the spurious reasoning that children are better off with heterosexual parents is at best negligent, but this is not the main problem with this decision. The legislature has clearly extended the reach of the government beyond that which is acceptable, and it is this expansion of power that the Court should have restricted.
It seems fairly clear that any law is by definition a limitation on the actions of anybody who would otherwise seek to undertake the proscribed act. Legislators must balance the benefits to society of making the law, against the hardship of those who would be adversely affected. If the hardship is too egregious or the benefit too minor, the law should not be tolerated.
The same-sex-marriage ban fails on both aspects.
The hardship, both financial to those denied equal treatment for their partnerships and emotional as targets of discrimination, is very real and clearly egregious. These people are citizens of both state and country regardless of their sexuality and the government represents them as much as it does evangelicals.
The only benefit, on the other hand, is that certain heterosexual people get to have society more closely resemble what they think it should look like. In short, other than within these people's mental appraisal of the 'right kind of society' there is no benefit in prohibiting same-sex marriage.
With no tangible benefit and a clear and egregious cost to many millions of Americans, these laws have no moral justification.
The Court's refusal to challenge the spurious reasoning that children are better off with heterosexual parents is at best negligent, but this is not the main problem with this decision. The legislature has clearly extended the reach of the government beyond that which is acceptable, and it is this expansion of power that the Court should have restricted.
It seems fairly clear that any law is by definition a limitation on the actions of anybody who would otherwise seek to undertake the proscribed act. Legislators must balance the benefits to society of making the law, against the hardship of those who would be adversely affected. If the hardship is too egregious or the benefit too minor, the law should not be tolerated.
The same-sex-marriage ban fails on both aspects.
The hardship, both financial to those denied equal treatment for their partnerships and emotional as targets of discrimination, is very real and clearly egregious. These people are citizens of both state and country regardless of their sexuality and the government represents them as much as it does evangelicals.
The only benefit, on the other hand, is that certain heterosexual people get to have society more closely resemble what they think it should look like. In short, other than within these people's mental appraisal of the 'right kind of society' there is no benefit in prohibiting same-sex marriage.
With no tangible benefit and a clear and egregious cost to many millions of Americans, these laws have no moral justification.
posted by Sparx at 09:10
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home