For thousands of years, marriage law has concerned itself with a particular kind of enduring bond between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse—the kind of act that can but does not always lead to the woman's pregnancy. In that regard, the question of marriage is not about a civil right at all. Which means that there will no longer be any basis for distinguishing legally between a heterosexual union and a homosexual relationship. Do what extend to you see decisions and trends in other parts of the world as being relevant to interpretation of our Constitution? A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. But, of course, since legal declarations cannot turn reality into something it cannot become, a variety of conundrums, contradictions, and anomalies will inevitably arise. Voting 5 to 4, the Court overruled its earlier decision in Bowers v Hardwick and found that the state lacked a legitimate interest in regulating the private sexual conduct of consenting adults.
In particular, we need to be clear about what constitutes a civil right.
Please update your browser
Rather, it is about whether homosexual relationships should be identified as having the structure of marriage, and only after that can civil rights considerations emerge about how citizens should be treated fairly with respect to marriage. Inthe Georgia Supreme Court struck down the statute first challenged in Bowers as a violation of the Georgia Constitution. The Supreme Court in considered a challenge to a Texas law that criminalized homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy. But here, you see, is the sleight of hand. What limitations does the Constitution place on ability of states to treat people differently because of their sexual orientation?
In Obergefell v Hodgesa five-member Court majority concluded that the bans did indeed violate both 14 Amendment provisions. There is no civil rights discrimination against an eight-year-old youngster who is denied the right to enter into marriage. Those who choose to live together in life-long homosexual relationships; or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life together in the same home—all of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages. The law encompasses the relationship only in a legal way. It is a version of an appeal for the protection of free speech, and in this case it is a demand that the speech of particular persons carry the authority to define the structure of reality without regard to the basis of past legal judgments. There is no civil rights discrimination being practiced against a youngster who is not allowed the identity of a college student because she is not qualified to enter college. Pregnancy will still be possible only by implanting a male sperm in a female egg, whether that is done by sexual intercourse inside or outside of marriage, or by in vitro fertilization, or by implanting male sperm in the uterus of a woman not married to the man whose sperm are being used.