- Gabrielle Union deserves better from Terry Crews Tuesday 11:12 PM
- T.I. publicly apologizes to daughters after Kobe Bryant’s death Tuesday 8:46 PM
- ‘Squash the boss’: Labor union seemingly unknowingly posted furry fetish art Tuesday 8:04 PM
- TikTok user pretending to be lab technician who has contracted coronavirus Tuesday 7:08 PM
- Caroline Calloway says she plans to campaign for Bernie Sanders Tuesday 6:23 PM
- Justin Bieber, Snoop Dogg, millions of others sign petition to make Kobe Bryant new NBA logo Tuesday 5:39 PM
- No, Lana Del Rey did not cry because Billie Eilish won album of the year Tuesday 4:48 PM
- People are exposing their eyeballs to phone flash for this TikTok challenge Tuesday 3:55 PM
- Watch Mike Bloomberg try to shake a dog’s mouth Tuesday 3:41 PM
- ‘Rey who?’ is the funniest meme to emerge from ‘The Rise of Skywalker’ Tuesday 3:30 PM
- AI beat the CDC to the punch on coronavirus warnings Tuesday 3:21 PM
- What exactly is a ‘large boulder the size of a small boulder’? Tuesday 2:49 PM
- Mom of ‘Success Kid’ says Steve King can’t use her son’s meme for ‘repulsive’ campaign Tuesday 2:00 PM
- Jake Paul can’t escape Logan Paul’s shadow—even if that loyalty has hurt his career Tuesday 1:13 PM
- Kobe Bryant’s Oscar-winning ‘Dear Basketball’ is now available to stream for free (updated) Tuesday 12:21 PM
On Friday, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision effectively legalizing marriage equality in all 50 states.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is a historic one—expanding marriage rights to millions of gay and lesbian Americans. At the same time, the document is, in many ways, a thing of beauty. In asserting the importance of allowing same sex couples to wed, Justice Kennedy has penned an oft-poetic love letter to marital fidelity.
Seriously, it’s probably the most romantic thing you’re read all year. Here are 14 of the most inspiring passages:
- “Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other.”
- “[T]he petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities.”
- “From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.”
- “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation. … There is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices.”
- “The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.”
- “Decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make. … This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.”
- “Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. … This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.”
- “It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage. The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.”
- “Far from seeking to devalue marriage, the petitioners seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities. And their immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.”
- “Petitioner James Obergefell … met John Arthur over two decades ago. They fell in love and started a life together, establishing a lasting, committed relation. In 2011, however, Arthur was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. This debilitating disease is progressive, with no known cure. Two years ago, Obergefell and Arthur decided to commit to one another, resolving to marry before Arthur died. To fulfill their mutual promise, they traveled from Ohio to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal. It was difficult for Arthur to move, and so the couple were wed inside a medical transport plane as it remained on the tarmac in Baltimore. Three months later, Arthur died. Ohio law does not permit Obergefell to be listed as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. By statute, they must remain strangers even in death, a state-imposed separation Obergefell deems ‘hurtful for the rest of time.'”
- “The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.”
- “As the State itself makes marriage all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it, exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects. It demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society. Same-sex couples, too, may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning.”
- “The right to marry is fundamental as a matter of history and tradition, but rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era. Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied.”
- “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
Over on the other side of the court, Justice Clarence Thomas’s argument against same sex marriage involved insisting slavery really wasn’t as bad as people make it out to be. Really.
Here is Thomas’s line of reasoning, that the government denying that marriage rights to same sex couples didn’t function to rob anyone of their dignity:
The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.
Compare and contrast, people. Compare and contrast.
Photo by Ludovic Berton/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0)
Aaron Sankin is a former Senior Staff Writer at the Daily Dot who covered the intersection of politics, technology, online privacy, Twitter bots, and the role of dank memes in popular culture. He lives in Seattle, Washington. He joined the Center for Investigative Reporting in 2016.