On June 26, the Supreme Court of the United States voted 5-4 that the Constitution means that states cannot ban same-sex marriages. This means that in the US, gay marriage is legal nationwide. While this has caused celebrations across the country and on social media alike, it has, of course, attracted dissent. And there’s something about the possibility of gay marriage that makes people lose their minds and make large leaps of logic.
First of all, Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent quickly spread across the Internet for its very cranky language. When he wasn’t bashing Justice Kennedy’s writing of the decision by calling it pretentious and egotistical, he was going on about how the decision will destroy democracy or something. He also said that the Constitution in 1868 defined marriage as between a man and a woman, so that answers everything – never mind that in almost 150 years, the country would hopefully see some progression and evolution. He also said that “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag” and he goes on to say that the Supreme Court can now be compared to the words found in a fortune cookie.
Justice Samuel Alito said that there is no way to know the long-term ramifications of gay marriage on straight marriage, and so the Supreme Court was not qualified to make a decision on it. Nevermind that Canada has had it for a decade and there have been no negative ramifications. Alito also said that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation. By this logic, childfree people or adoptive parents shouldn’t be able to get married either. He also worries that the decision will marginalize proponents of traditional marriage, because they are obviously the ones historically facing discrimination.
But the Internet is the real battleground of dissent. The comments on the Fox News article were coming in so fast that it was almost impossible to read. My favourite that I caught was “DON’T COMPLY WITH GAY,” but there were also comments about how the Supreme Court will be taken over by ISIS and now people will start marrying their dogs. The New York Times article had one person satirically(?) talking about marrying his daughter if marriage was just about loving someone now. Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum asked on air if this decision meant that three people could get married if they want to.
I hope I don’t need to say this, but just because people of the same sex can marry each other does not mean that now people can go out and marry their dogs. Maybe if there were thousands of people who wanted to marry their dogs, and they systematically pushed for acceptance for years and years, and public opinion changed to accept that this was normal, and the dogs could CONSENT to marriage (that’s a big one), then that would happen. But no, I somehow do not think this decision will lead to marriage to animals or inanimate objects spreading across the country. Gay marriage will not lead to other wacky marriages because your dog/car/child cannot consent to sexual activity, and so violates consent laws. Gay marriage will not lead to incestuous marriage for (in some cases) the same reason, and the fact that incest leads to genetic problems in children. Gay marriage does not have these issues.
It never fails to confuse me as to why Americans don’t look to other countries that have legalized gay marriage, gun control, legalized abortion, etc., and think, “Well, the apocalypse hasn’t happened there yet.”
And the best part about the decision is tweet after tweet from people disgusted with America and wanting to move to Canada.
No one tell them gay marriage has been legal here since 2005.
