Supreme Court Acceptance of Gay Marriage: Inevitable?
Gay Marriage Across the United States
After years of controversy, tension, and debate, by next Thursday, the United States Supreme Court will decide the fate of gay marriage. Regardless which side of the fence one’s opinions fall, it’s surely a certain kind of relief to know that the date is set for the whole ordeal to, theoretically, be resolved.
In anticipation of the verdict, one popular belief among many Americans is that defenders of same-sex marriage bans are grasping at straws. The most recent argument in support of the bans put forth by Michigan attorney general John Bursch seems to point towards the consideration of gay marriage’s potential impact on the concept of marriage itself. The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision to lift or not lift the bans has apparently come down to the simple act of defining the word “marriage.”
So what is marriage? Several supporters of maintaining the bans might ask, “Isn’t civil union enough?” Those on the side of ban lifting consider the question to be one of equality. For many of these people, the issue seems to be less about whether a civil union is “enough” and more about “why does it have to be enough?”
While making his defense, Bursch was asked multiple times by Supreme Court justices to explain exactly how allowing gay marriage would negatively impact the concept of the institution. His response might be paraphrased: it’s the issue of protecting future generations of American children.
His apparent argument is based on the idea that lifting bans on gay marriage will in turn lead to an increase in children born outside of wedlock. So, Bursch would perhaps define marriage as a union formed, at least partially, to the end of solidifying the bond between potential parents – because getting married is about raising kids in a stable environment.
Probably few people, if any, are against stable environments for children. But is this really what’s at stake? Is it likely, or even possible that the inclusion of homosexuals in the institution of marriage will discourage committed relationships between heterosexual parents?
His argument might make more sense if procreation was the incentive behind most marriages. However, there seems to be no evidence proving this. People get married for all kinds of reasons – having and raising kids is only one of them. Countless people are wed with no intention of even having children, and some simply can’t. By Bursch’s logic, maybe these heterosexual couples should also be banned from getting married, including those who are biologically incapable of procreation. If his stance is correct, then it appears that his battle (perhaps unintentionally) is for a ban on marriage between couples that cannot or will not have children, regardless of their sexual orientation.
So again, what is marriage? If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Bursch argument, then it seems that marriage is fundamentally based on the ability and intention to procreate. If the bans against same-sex marriages are lifted, apparently the actual bond between couples defines marriage. The nation holds its breath.
But what about Tennessee, where does it stand in anticipation of next Thursday’s ruling? Legally the state maintains a ban on same-sex marriage. In response to the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision, however, government officials have made it clear that their current stance is one of “wait and see what happens.”
That we will.
If you or your family has legal issues involving gay marriage, you’re not alone. By hiring a nationally recognized family law attorney, you improve your chances of obtaining a positive outcome in your case. Our divorce lawyers are some of the best in Tennessee, and they’re ready and waiting to talk to you and to represent you in your case.
