Gun Control, Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Rights.

Last Monday (25/3/13) the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) took up two cases relating to the issue of same-sex or gay marriage. While I may have commented on the wider metaphorical implications of this hearing I may have forgotten to comment on the actual, fundamental issues relating to these cases. So while I may have missed the headlines allow me to catch up now;

The first case in front of SOCTUS was the 1996 Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA). Although I was about 14 when DOMA was passed and have neither the time nor inclination to read the whole thing Wikipedia informs me that the two problematic sections of the act which are being considered by SOCTUS are Section 2 and Section 3. Section 2 simply removes any obligation on any state to recognise a same-sex relationship while Section 3 goes further forcing the federal government to only recognise partners of opposite gender as a legal spouse in any and all acts or statute.

This prevents same sex couples for accessing legal protections in a whole host of areas including inheritance, transfer of property, duty of care and probably most importantly access to financial benefits such as pensions or health-care. This is clearly a violation of the 14th amendment which grants all people the right to equal protection under the law. Therefore DOMA should be struck down and frankly I'm confused as to why it was signed in the first place.

The second case in front of SCOTUS is that of California's Proposition 8. This was a ballot initiative that was passed by California voters that amend the Californian Bill of Rights to include a Section (7.5) requiring California to only recognise a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It has absolutely no impact on the legal rights of those in same sex relationships. Therefore I think this was something that was simply made up by some smart-arsed Californian to test whether the term "marriage" is a legal one or a religious one.  As proposition 8 has no bearing on whether the use of the term "marriage" has any legal implication the 1st amendment which protects the freedom of religion means that SCOTUS had no grounds to even take up the issue of Proposition 8. Therefore Proposition 8 should be upheld and SCOTUS should write a letter of apology.

The other major issue that has been important in US politics recently is that of gun control which appropriately enough I found discussing with my mother's. Well my DWP mother had just got in from work so was eating her dinner quietly. My biological mother however argued that she couldn't understand why US citizens thought that they had the right to bear arms. So I quickly countered using the example of Iraq to demonstrate that while a lightly armed population could not stop an invasion force it can certainly cause an occupation force a f*ck load of problems. Possibly being a little drunk I then went on to explain how a lightly armed population prevented the US Federal government from forcing through anti-segregation and other legislation that granted black Americans civil rights in the 1960's.

It was at this point my mother pointed out that it's effectiveness in denying black Americans civil rights was possibly the worst argument in favour in gun ownership in the history of arguments. However I quickly countered by pointing out that because the US Federal government was prevented from imposing civil rights legislation on a lightly armed population it was instead forced to wait until a majority of Americans came to understand that regardless of race people were fundamentally equal. To my mind that is a stronger and longer lasting victory.

I'm pretty sure there is a lesson in there somewhere for the US' current gay rights mob. After all it may be the 1st amendment that prevents Congress from passing a law abridging the freedom of religion. However it is mere reality that prevents it passing a law that says everybody must be your friend.

23:55 on 2/4/13.