I'm going to begin in a way that makes a part - a very large part, if you have any familiarity with my writing on the subject - of my feelings about today's events perfectly clear.
CONGRATULATIONS, MY FRIENDS!!!
For those of you who aren't following the news, or are living with your head under a rock, today was a landmark day.
It was the first step on a long road.
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that denying recognition of a legally recognized marriage from another state, on the basis of the genders of the participants, is unconstitutional.
They then went farther than that, and flatly affirmed that denying people the right to marry based on their choice of partner directly contravenes the Due Process clause, inherently constitutes unequal treatment under the law, and as such is also unconstitutional.
"This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.
A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U. S., at 12; see also Zablocki, supra, at 384 (observing Loving held “the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals”). Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make."
In other words, the Supreme Court just legalized gay marriage.
Celebrate!
And then, with sober deliberation, once the party hats are off and the beer has gone flat, remember that the job isn't finished.
The job has only just begun.
Because the same legal structure - the same Constitutional protections that led to this decision - also demands further action.
Note the first line of that second paragraph.
The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.
And the last line, as well.
Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childrearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution...
Those two lines mean there's more work to do.
Because the fundamental premise is that your relationships are yours.
They do not belong to your peers.
They do not belong to your government.
They belong, rightly, exclusively, and inherently, to you.
Now, I know as I get rolling here, there will be, with the inevitability of the tides, questions.
"B-b-b-but adoption law!"
"B-b-b-but child custody!"
"B-b-b-but medical decisions!"
I am hereby assuring you that there is, in fact, a simple way to address those concerns, so I will get to them when I get there, ok?
So.
First and foremost, among human rights, are two bedrock principles inherent in the very concept of sentient life.
First, you have the right to your life.
From this right descend the right to property, the right to self-defense, and the right to pursue (though not to succeed; nothing guarantees that) self-advancement, provided only that your quest to do so does not infringe on anyone else.
And second, you have the right to freedom.
From freedom descend all other rights, and those rights, as with freedom, contain only one solitary caveat: "so long as it does not infringe on anyone else."
An it harm none, do as thou wilt.
Freedom is inherent in the human condition in the same way that breathing is; the two cannot be separated if the organism is to survive.
The court case today was a huge step in the right direction.
It was worthy of the celebration that will inevitably be carried out.
It wasn't the whole journey.
In this country, for many years, we've mistaken custom, tradition, and comfort for the "right."
We've accorded many things over this country's history the weight of moral approval, only to have later generations realize the many ways in which those beliefs were mistaken.
Because, ultimately, there are only two fundamental rights: the right to your life, and the right to do anything you want to do that doesn't harm anyone else.
And that second one applies.
Even if you belong to a religion that says you should marry more than one partner.
Even if you are sexually oriented towards the same biological gender and want to marry accordingly.
Even if you wish to have a child without a partner.
Even if you wish to have multiple partners of multiple genders.
The government does not, and cannot - and by the last line of that opinion I quoted above, the Supremes agree with me - have the right to tell you that those choices are rightly the place of "society" to make for you.
Because they are not.
Those choices are, and must be, yours.
ONLY yours.
The government got into the business of marriage for one reason: tradition. It literally never occurred to the Founders that they didn't have to do that.
Woops.
But here's the thing: reading their letters, reading the things they had to say about liberty, freedom, and what it meant to them, it is - or should be - obvious that they would totally agree with the reasoning; it is not society's place to make those decisions on behalf of a citizen.
Society CAN say, for example - since I know this will get brought up - that it would be "harm" to marry below a certain age, because people under that age are not yet ready for that kind of responsibility.
Society CAN say that you cannot marry an animal.
Society CAN say that you cannot marry a tree.
Do you know why those three things are within the purview of society?
Consent.
Agency.
The free exercise of free will.
Children, animals, and plants, cannot give informed consent, because they lack the ability to do so.
Any such relationship is therefore inherently harmful; it requires an absence of consent. This is what statutory rape means, guys; one person involved is unable to provide consent and therefore the relationship is inherently harmful.
But guess what?
If everyone involved in the relationship is a consenting adult, the government has no right to be involved outside of the function of recording its existence.
Which leads me to the "b-b-b-but inheritance law!" questions.
There is no good reason why the government cannot simply permit you to record a legal next of kin, who is then responsible for making those decisions of inheritance, medical care, and child custody when you are incapacitated. In strict point of fact, the government already does this; the typical document used to register as next of kin is a marriage certificate recorded by the clerk of court, but a legal declaration of kinship is just as binding and could be whipped up in OpenOffice in minutes.
Marriage law, as it exists, is contract law. A contract having more than two signatories is no less valid, and no less enforceable. There is no valid reason that contract law cannot continue to cover the situations human relationships produce.
Just because you, and I, and everyone else, are used to it being one way, is no reason for it to stay that way.
The government has no rightful place in human relationships. Human relationships belong only to those participating in them, and nothing more.
But tradition, right?
Custom, right?
How do you think those things feel when an immigrant comes from a polygamous society to America?
It feels like we don't have a great regard for their traditions, I'm sure.
"You have one wife now."
"What? But I have three."
"No. You're in America. You have one. The other two are social outcasts who we look down on."
"I'msorrywhat?"
This is no way to run a country.
The thing is, everyone is really caught up in their own personal facet of a much larger issue.
I have a friend, for whom I have tremendous personal respect, who is no doubt celebrating with her wife quite thoroughly tonight.
I'm hoping I can convince her to side with me after their party is done.
Because the same moral principles that apply to gay marriage apply to all other human relationships, as well.
This is a wonderful day.
It should be celebrated.
It should be recorded in history.
But the fact that it is a first step should not be forgotten.
A long, beautiful, long-overdue first step, yes.
A righteous, empowering, rejoicing first step, yes.
But the first of a long journey.
Keep fighting. Reclaim our freedom from the government, just this way, one step at a time, always moving forward.
The government rightly exists to protect you, not to control you.
Do not mistake one for the other, and never quit until the government doesn't either.
[As a footnote, if you want to read the actual text of the Court's opinions, the majority opinion, by Justice Kennedy, can be found on page 6, while the dissent, by Justice Roberts can be found on page 40, and by Justice Scalia on page 69. The link opens in a new window.]
