Same Love Outweighs Old Arguments

During the oral arguments of Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8 case), Mr. Cooper said that states retain the right of protecting their "special interest" of procreation. Justice Alito also stated that since gay marriage was newer than cell phones and social media, how are we to decide if it's right for society?
BACK UP.
In response to Mr. Cooper's regurgitated statement, Justice Kagan responded with: "Mr. Cooper, suppose a State said that, Because we think
that the focus of marriage really should be on
procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses
anymore to any couple where both people are over the age
of 55. Would that be constitutional?"
Of course Mr. Cooper responded with no. It would not be constitutional. However, Justice Kagan is right. If procreation is the ultimate goal of marriage, shouldn't we deny marriage licenses to seniors and the infertile? Furthermore, if Mr. Cooper's theory holds true to itself, wouldn't contraception then have to be federally illegal? For if marriage only serves the purpose of procreation, why would instruments be available to prevent conception? However, that issue was already settled in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). As citizens, we do have a right to use contraceptives. However, where did the Supreme Court find the law to back this claim up? Oh yeah, in the "right to marital privacy". Well, if a right to marital privacy has already been established, who cares what goes on inside of it? The Federal Government would be the correct answer. 
Justice Alito's statement only warrants commentary because it is so incredibly stupid. Tradition has always played a critical role in the SCOTUS due to the fact that we don't like changing things that have been going well due to the fear of societal downfall. Remember when African Americans were predicted to run society into the ground if given equal rights? Same thing going on here. If homosexuals are afforded marriage rights, there goes society! This will not happen. Furthermore, Alito claims that gay marriage was first developed in the Netherlands in 2000. This is wrong. Dating back to mythological times, some societies viewed homosexuality as the purest form of love available. And gay relationships and unions have been going on as long as we've been here, we have just been forced to suppress those tales because they don't fit into the "traditional" form of marriage. This is why we have things like "Coming Out Day". Unlike racial profiling, you cannot always tell someone is gay from their outward appearance, this forced many people into the closet to hide their orientation. Don't do this. It warps society's image of your power and results in Justice Alito saying foolish, untrue things on the record. 
And Scalia, well I won't even go into Scalia. Just know that he has admitted to have a "fear of gays", has described them as "terrifying", yet promises to set aside his personal beliefs in order to hand down a fair ruling. 
Yeah, right.
Stay strong people.

What's Really At Stake?

As we all have heard, today and tomorrow, the United States Supreme Court will hear cases on the Constitutionality of Prop 8 and DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). A little history to begin. DOMA was enacted after Massachusetts voted to legalize gay marriage in 2004. George W. Bush's reaction to the newly instated Massachusetts law was to create DOMA. DOMA federally recognizes the marriage of different-sex couples, and defines marriage as the union between only one woman and one man. After passing DOMA, Bush was worried that it would one day be tested in the high courts (which is why he also pushed for a Constitutional amendment), and he was right. Today is that day.
When we think of marriage we often forget what marriage actually constitutes. Why does the federal government care about marriage at all? It is definitely not mentioned in the Constitution. The answer lies in the nuclear family model. Individuals are often more self sufficient when they are part of a "wholesome" family unit, which is why the federal government has a hand in the pot when it comes to recognizing marriage. However, marriage isn't the whole story. Benefits are accrued during the time spent married, and it is estimated that marries, different-sex couples receive up to 1000 more benefits than same-sex couples do. And here's the kicker. We just legalized gay marriage in Washington, right? Although couples can marry in that state, they cannot receive any federal benefits, thanks to DOMA.
Here is a short list of rights that same-sex couples (even married ones) are denied:
-Joint parental rights of children
-Joint adoption
-Status as "next-of-kin" for emergency situations, and medical issues
-Right to make a decision about where/what to do with a loved ones remains.
-Immigration and residency for partners from other countries.
-Automatic inheritance in absence of a will.
-Social security
-Medicare
-Spousal veteran benefits
-Joint filing of taxes
-Sick leave/maternity leave to take care of partner/partner's child
-Tax credits
-Estate and gift tax benefits.
And the list goes on. This isn't only about marriage. This is about being equal before the law.
Here is a parting story.
The women pictured below are Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer. After being together 42 years, the couple decided to marry in Canada (their only option) in 2007. Two years after their marriage, Thea succumbed to MS and passed away. Following the death of her partner, Windsor had to pay extremely high inheritance taxes in order to receive Spyer's estate. THIS is what has to stop. Same love.