www.mozilla.com Weather Central
Voices
Headlines

Running for the wrong bus -7/28/2014, 9:04 AM

Old Old Mexico -- Culture and content -7/28/2014, 9:03 AM

The defining issue of economic recovery -7/27/2014, 4:53 PM

In a world of sectarian violence, what can be done? -7/27/2014, 4:53 PM

Funding DHDC -7/27/2014, 1:18 PM

Endorsement for Shultz -7/25/2014, 3:28 PM

Against the wind -7/25/2014, 4:23 PM

Do blacks need favors? -7/25/2014, 4:23 PM

Vote Huelskamp out -7/25/2014, 4:23 PM

Open meetings -7/24/2014, 8:07 AM

Leadership change needed -7/24/2014, 8:07 AM

Vote for Huelskamp -7/24/2014, 8:06 AM

Protecting unborn children -7/24/2014, 8:06 AM

Learning experience valuable -7/24/2014, 8:06 AM

False equivalence -7/23/2014, 8:07 AM

Measles' scary comeback -7/23/2014, 1:27 PM

The 'big data' deal -7/23/2014, 10:07 AM

GOP can't get out of its own way -7/23/2014, 10:07 AM

War only will add to Middle East problems -7/22/2014, 8:10 AM

Avoiding taxes -7/22/2014, 8:10 AM

Take the win in Iran -7/21/2014, 8:57 AM

The high court's high-handedness -7/21/2014, 8:57 AM

Up in arms in the Capitol -7/20/2014, 4:52 PM

Firefighters weigh in on pay raise -7/20/2014, 4:52 PM

Backpacks for Kids -7/20/2014, 4:52 PM

Our unwillingness to defend ourselves -7/18/2014, 10:51 AM

Remembering a man who championed freedom -7/18/2014, 10:51 AM

GOP split -7/17/2014, 8:38 AM

New Kansas senator -7/17/2014, 8:37 AM

Who'll build the roads? -7/17/2014, 8:37 AM

Reagan: In or out? -7/16/2014, 2:45 PM

'Unbroken' WWII vet more than a hero -7/16/2014, 2:44 PM

Savor the fruits of your labor -7/16/2014, 2:44 PM

Erasing candidate's standards -7/15/2014, 11:36 AM

Returning to Trail Wood -7/15/2014, 10:13 AM

Leaving some in 'suspense' -7/15/2014, 10:13 AM

Strangers in a remarkable land -7/14/2014, 9:11 AM

Courageous or spineless? Our actions decide -7/14/2014, 9:11 AM

Ambition: An unlikely gift to Kansas voters -7/13/2014, 11:16 AM

Beyond the outrage -7/13/2014, 11:16 AM

Water watch -7/13/2014, 11:16 AM

Scenic outlooks -7/11/2014, 9:18 AM

China's research trumps teaching -7/11/2014, 9:17 AM

Important slow news -7/10/2014, 9:42 AM

We've got a promise to keep -7/10/2014, 9:33 AM

The white combine calls -7/9/2014, 10:02 AM

Vote for family values -7/9/2014, 10:02 AM

Politicians making a mockery of my faith -7/9/2014, 10:02 AM

Missing tribute -7/9/2014, 10:02 AM

Rural students deserve 21st Century education -7/8/2014, 9:10 AM

The education table dance -7/8/2014, 9:10 AM

A new virus -7/8/2014, 9:10 AM

Government as God -7/7/2014, 9:38 AM

EPA affecting others -7/7/2014, 9:38 AM

'Narrow' decision from the narrow-minded -7/7/2014, 9:38 AM

The tax trap -7/6/2014, 4:35 PM

Rulings produce 'First Amendment fireworks' -7/6/2014, 4:35 PM

Firefighter salaries -7/6/2014, 4:35 PM

Economic freedom -7/4/2014, 11:54 AM

Protecting our independence -7/4/2014, 11:54 AM

Dan Johnson, 1936-2014 -7/3/2014, 7:12 AM

New Iraq offensive backfires -7/3/2014, 7:11 AM

Setting things straight -7/3/2014, 7:11 AM

'Crapitalism' -7/3/2014, 7:11 AM

Feeding peace throughout the world -7/2/2014, 9:01 AM

Half way is still only half way -7/2/2014, 9:01 AM

Sherow a better choice -7/2/2014, 9:01 AM

Fireworks, part II -7/2/2014, 9:01 AM

Reality show made in Topeka -7/1/2014, 8:53 AM

The justices and their cellphones -7/1/2014, 8:53 AM

LOB defeated -7/1/2014, 8:53 AM

Tragedy explored in 'Broken Heart Land' -6/30/2014, 9:14 AM

Mexico City: The adventure continues -6/30/2014, 9:14 AM

Even our youngest Americans are citizens -6/29/2014, 12:58 PM

Ban on fireworks -6/29/2014, 12:58 PM

It's time to teach active citizenship -6/29/2014, 12:57 PM

The education establishment's success -6/27/2014, 10:39 AM

Piecework professors -6/27/2014, 10:39 AM

Marriage for all -6/27/2014, 10:39 AM

Prairie chicken madness -6/26/2014, 4:17 PM

Omission control -6/26/2014, 10:12 AM

Equal in the eyes of the law -6/26/2014, 10:12 AM

Help wanted -6/26/2014, 10:12 AM

The old red barn -6/25/2014, 9:19 AM

Beware the unimaginable -6/25/2014, 9:19 AM

Early critic of school testing was right -6/24/2014, 8:53 AM

Finding something 'different' in Topeka -6/24/2014, 8:53 AM

Shopping small -6/24/2014, 8:53 AM

Into the classroom -6/23/2014, 8:55 AM

Wow! And thanks to you -6/23/2014, 8:55 AM

Fireworks double-standard -6/23/2014, 8:55 AM

Glass half full -6/22/2014, 5:57 PM

Brownback's experiment wallops taxpayers -6/22/2014, 5:56 PM

Examining the importance of 'where' we speak -6/22/2014, 5:56 PM

Slavery reparations -6/20/2014, 8:33 AM

'Help me plagiarize' -6/20/2014, 8:33 AM

Thank a farmer -6/20/2014, 8:33 AM

Here comes tomorrow -6/19/2014, 8:43 AM

Why Americans dislike soccer -6/19/2014, 8:43 AM

Switching to teaching -6/18/2014, 4:32 PM

myTown Calendar

SPOTLIGHT
[var top_story_head]

Supremely confused about marriage equality

Published on -4/17/2013, 9:52 AM

Printer-friendly version
E-Mail This Story

Confusion reigned supreme in the nation's highest court last month as it heard arguments on two same-sex marriage cases. Confronted with the possibility of endorsing the right of men to marry men and women, women, the Justices resembled nothing so much as a group of kittens playing with a ball of barbed wire.

They poked at the cases and retreated from them. Then they circled around and poked again, never quite daring to confront the issue directly.

Admittedly they're strange cases. In one, the Supreme Court was asked to overrule a lower court's decision that had found unconstitutional California's Proposition 8 -- a ban on marriage equality that the state itself wasn't willing to defend.

Instead, a group of private citizens with no real standing in the case brought the appeal.

"I just wonder if the case was properly granted," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, seemingly speaking for a majority of the Court.

So why did the Court agree to hear the case in the first place? Two words: Antonin Scalia. You can always count on him to be on the wrong side of an issue.

Court observers say that he, above all the other Justices, despises the growing trend toward same-sex marriage rights. Thinking that this would be the court's best shot to knock it down before it gains even more acceptance, he reportedly talked three fellow conservatives into taking up the case.

The court spent half the day arguing about whether they should be considering the case in the first place, rather than struggling with its central question: Do gay people have a right to lawful wedded bliss like everyone else?

Not that the rest of the debate was marked by much more clarity.

At one point, Justice Elena Kagan asked how marriage equality would damage traditional marriage. The lawyer for those supporting Proposition 8 responded that the key to marriage is procreation.

That's news to many heterosexual couples that have no intention of having children. Hasn't he heard of birth control -- you know, condoms, diaphragms, the pill, things like that?

The questioning then veered off into an unproductive discussion of infertile couples, elderly couples, Strom Thurmond and other matters that had nothing to do with anything.

The bottom line is this: The opponents of marriage equality have yet to explain satisfactorily how allowing gay people to marry would harm "the sanctity of marriage." I think that expanding the franchise would make the institution stronger, not weaker.

LGBT people aren't attacking marriage, they're improving it. More power to them.

Supreme Court watchers, by the way, expect the justices to duck the issue and send it back to the state. That would be too bad. Rights shouldn't be left to individual states to grant or not. We have constitutions to protect minorities from majorities, not to let them be oppressed by them.

The second case involved the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, in which Congress defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, who now says he regrets doing so.

The law was challenged by an 83-year-old woman who was forced to pay much higher inheritance taxes when her wife died than she would have had the federal government recognized their marriage.

Once again, the government had second thoughts and decided not to defend its own law in court. The Republican anti-gay wing of the House took on that task. The court's discussion of the case was just as confused as that of the California case.

Bringing clarity to the matter was the woman who brought the claim, Edith Windsor. She and her partner had been together 40 years but only married the last two. And she said it was the best two.

"For anybody who doesn't understand why we want it and why we need it," Windsor said, "it is magic."

You'd think that true defenders of marriage would embrace that sentiment, not oppose it.

OtherWords columnist Donald Kaul lives in Ann Arbor, Mich.

digg delicious facebook stumbleupon google Newsvine
More News and Photos

Associated Press Videos

AP Breaking News
AP Nation-World News

View this site in another language.