In a landmark judgement, the US Supreme Court ruled on Friday that gay people can marry nationwide and states cannot ban same-sex marriage - an issue that divides America and India.
The 5-4 ruling giving LGBT rights activists their biggest victory came after decades of litigation and fast-changing public opinion that saw President Barack Obama come out in support of same sex marriage three years ago.
The majority opinion concluded with:
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.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
His administration supported the challengers to the gay marriage bans in the apex court.
Unlike India, where homosexual intercourse is effectively criminalised again after the Supreme Court overruled the Delhi high court’s reading down of section 377, same-sex couples can marry in 36 US states today, but federal appeals courts have been divided over whether states must allow same-sex couples to marry and recognize such marriages performed elsewhere.
The Supreme Court is yet to deliver its decision on the curative petition against Justice GS Singhvi’s judgment re-affirming section 377’s legality, although it quickly dismissed review petitions of the judgment.
The 14 same-sex couples and two widowers who challenged gay marriage bans in Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio were just a few of the estimated 650,000 same-sex couples in the US, 125,000 of whom are raising children.
Lawyers for the four states argued their bans were justified by tradition and the distinctive characteristics of opposite-sex unions.
The issue, they said should be resolved democratically, at the polls and in state legislatures, rather than by judges.
The challengers included same-sex couples who wanted to marry, those who sought to have their lawful out-of-state marriage recognized, as well as those who wanted to amend a birth or death certificate with their marriage status.
“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority with four liberal justices.
“In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were,” he added
In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia blasted the court’s “threat to American democracy.”
“The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me,” he wrote. “But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”
Read the judgment: Obergefell v. Hodges
Oral arguments of 28 April 2015:
- 14-556-Question-1 Obergefell v. Hodges Transcript / Audio
- 14-556-Question-2 Obergefell v. Hodges Transcript / Audio
Meanwhile, back in India…
…former Supreme Court judge Justice Markandey Katju posted on his Facebook page (via @subjudiced):
However, on his Twitter feed, Katju wrote:
Homosexuality shd certainly not be made a criminal offense in India as they are today. Section 377 of IPC should be abolished immediately.
— Markandey Katju (@mkatju) June 26, 2015
Update 23:16: Katju has published a blog post:
Only 1.6% people are gay While earlier some people thought that about 10% Americans were gay, later scientific surveys found that only 1.6% Americans were gay. Does this not prove that gay relationship is unnatural ? A man’s body is different from that of a woman’s. There is attraction between men and women, and this is nature’s method to continue the species. Is there no such thing as nature ? However, it is true that the minds of those 1.6% are so wired as to be attracted to the same sex. So there should be freedom in this respect, and homosexuality should not be a criminal offence, as it is in India vide section 377 I.P.C.’
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/paul-lagarde/cdc-only-16-americans-identify-gay-or-lesbian
Comments
@PETA: Read comment 2.2 before reading 2.2.1.
Once retired, they have no right to this title.
see this link to understand my comment- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sarcasm
As a matter of house style, we and many other papers use Justice even for retired judges, but what is the actually correct rule. Does anyone have any references?
Once a Justice, always a Justice? Or once you retire, do you technically have to call yourself Justice (retd) Katju?
What do readers prefer for us to do? I'm inclined to continue with our present house style but worth checking.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/09/07/should-we-call-former-judges-judge/
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/02/judging-former-judges-who-call-themselves-judge-part-iii/
I admit we're a bit inconsistent on this front. Sometimes I think we've omitted Justice before referring to Katju, I think.
At some level, I feel when a judge is doing a quasi judicial function and we're writing about them in that context, then using 'Justice' is certainly defensible. When we're talking about them as a person, it seems better to avoid using Justice without adding that they're retired.
What about Justice GP Mittal, who's resigned. If for argument's sake he was returning to the bar, should he still be called Justice? How about if he joins the CCI as a member? Would we have to say Justice (retd), or does it not count as retirement when you resign?
http://www.legallyindia.com/Bar-Bench-Litigation/delhi-hc-justice-gian-parkash-mittal-resigns-from-bench
To some of you it might feel like a pointless discussion, but in editorial we have to think about these things and have some consistent rules, just as we do for capitalisation of Bombay high court vs High Court of Bombay, etc, whether we use Mr or Dr or other honorifics or not, etc.
So I don't think there is anything wrong in continuing to give that respect as a matter of courtesy and especially if the person in question prefers it.
Once a judge vacates the office, he/ she is no longer entitled to the courtesies attached to the office though of course he would be entitled to whatever other courtesies/ respect might be due to him or her as a citizen.
So I don't see why retired judges should be referred to as Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) Blah Blah. It is irrelevant what the retired judge might or might nor prefer. What matters is that he/she is no longer a judge. Also the fact that our courts and ministries might have been using Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) Blah Blah is not of much consequence. These agencies are too obsequious anyway to take an independent stand.
Using Justice for a retired judge perpetuates the VIP and entitlement culture.
Also see https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/294
Read Article 18. Academic and military titles are permitted, but no other title can be used. Therefore, a very relevant question was posed.
This is how India creates too many VIPs for life. No one wants to give up their Government privileges after retirement whether it be housing, designation etc.
To go even further I would really prefer it if we moved away from calling Judges Justices to simply calling them Mr or Ms Judge XYZ and using Sir and Madam to address them in Court.
The word 'Justice' is such a loaded word and ordinary human beings should not be attributed such a lofty title, especially when justice more often than not is not forthcoming.
Thanks for pointing out. As it happens, I am aware of this. What I am also aware is that Mx. Seema Sapra poses a pertinent question. However, I visit LI when I take work breaks (sorry- break from work). One such breaks- sometimes I feel like responding to comments with something potentially profound while on other occasions (which are more often)- I chose and attempt to be funny. The above was the latter.
By the way, on the above discussion, we'll try to change our house style and not use Justice anymore for retired judges.
The above arguments seem to make sense.
I dont think the Mx is a revolution which needs to be caught on to for reference to everyone in general. As I understand it and my perception of it is that it is a matte of choice and is something one needs to specify to be referred to as. Default should still be Ms/mr. Since a counter argument can me made that not using a ms. or a mr. (as relevant) is taking away the identity of people who are ms. or a mr. and relate to one or rather be referred to as that. Mx. is better an exception than a rule. just my view.
To be honest, not sure what the point of honourifics is anyway - Mr this or Ms that. Mrs has already been practically abolished, and it's this weird pseudo-formality or sophistication that seems to make people cling to using either in letters or certificates or something that I've never quite understood... :)
However if Mx ever became commonplace for both or rather all genders, I would not mind that too. But I agree with you that that might not happen.
Sometimes in email correspondence with strangers (foreigners who might be unfamiliar that my first name reflects my female gender), I get responses addressing me as Sir, and then in my response I always clarify that btw I am female.
The Mrs and Ms mistake also happens frequently and because I am single, when someone refers to me as Mrs, I might correct them sometimes and ignore it at other times when it is not important.
But I think for Germans its common to call all women Mrs whether or not they are married. That's my impression at least.
In terms of theory, it seems fair enough: why should only a woman get 'upgraded' to a new honorific once she has 'achieved' marriage?
Apparently Germans no longer use "Fräulein" (Miss) and use "Frau" for all women whether married or not. Maybe that's why Germans writing in English tend to use Mrs all the time as a literal translation of Frau.
More sarcasm?
Why is it wrong?
I love my tortoise. Its been with me since my childhood and is almost as old me. I love it very dearly.
Love has no boundary and why should I be excluded from such an 'old' institution.
Don't ya dare point out any difference between a human being and animals. They have feelings too. I love my Tortoise. Period.
Care to support my cause?
If love has no boundaries why don't you let me marry my horse or dog or cow or any animal?
Katju's logic is right.
Homosexuality needs to be decriminalised. I still don't understand how it is criminal. (377 is for unnatural sex) How will anybody know whether I had sex or not? Please care to explain)
Anyway, what I am trying to say is that Katju was right and has a sound logic behind his argument.
Wrong cannot be attributed to any deed or act as per anyone's perception rather any act should only be categorised "Wrong" "immoral" "pernicious"after getting it tested on touchstone of "Nature" and harms it bringing to the society....!!
before i get lambasted by all so called "liberals" or "progressives" for supra, i would like to conclude going by the logic justifying the "Homosexuality" my attraction towards dog is also getting endorsed as it protect my freedom to choose my partner for **** intercourse.
catch here is "consent" so i take dogs barking as his consent and thus everything justified .... if you think its not "consensual" I invite you to come and prove by evidence and not by perception...!!
In light of the completely weird direction this thread is taking, I withdraw my comment which was really posted carelessly and intended as sarcastic and an attempt at black humor. But given that I really can't figure out what the original comment I responded to was about, my response could be misinterpreted, hence I withdraw it.
Just for the record, I have no strong feelings on gay people marrying, they should certainly have the freedom to live their lives freely just like straight people.
& yes bringing in animals into the debate about gay people marrying is distasteful.
May be .. !!! I take it as sign of full & free consent ..!! Underlying question is can the act be punished ???
Yours fascistically,
Kian
You people want to be lawyers and cant distinguish between consent by an animal and a human? have some shame. Dehumanising a persecuted minority makes you inhuman not them. Reducing leaving breathing thinking people to dogs and plants calling them diseased speaks volumes about your diseased brain.
Btw if I can be awarded a life term or 10 year punishment for being who i am? why should I not murder , or rob or do other crimes. why should those millons of other people should not do the same. If the republic condemns us as subhumans then put it to fire. If we are born criminals then We should not really care about such a constitution or such a country.
You people want to be lawyers and cant distinguish between consent by an animal and a human? have some shame. Dehumanising a persecuted minority makes you inhuman not them. Reducing leaving breathing thinking people to dogs and plants calling them diseased speaks volumes about your diseased brain.
Btw if I can be awarded a life term or 10 year punishment for being who i am? why should I not murder , or rob or do other crimes. why should those millons of other people should not do the same. If the republic condemns us as subhumans then put it to fire. If we are born criminals then We should not really care about such a constitution or such a country.[/quote]
how conveniently you labelled us of possessing a "diseased brain" ... now take this;
how can u define consent? lets assume conveying your willingness to participate in the proposed act by way of action or words (which can be understood).. right? and i guess that's the difference you were emphasizing between consent given by human being and animal.
dogs or for that reason any other animal can give his consent in multiple ways... coming on to the oral confirmation ur argument fell short of reasons and entails subjectivity, for ex:
two people having two different linguistic ability cannot give oral consent right..??? only avenue they have is giving consent by action.
Dude as far as your disgust towards idea of having fornication with animals is concerned remember gay relationship was detested by all for centuries as it is against the law of nature but now people, alike, started advocating it as rights so who knows in coming future bestiality will also be legalized, after all there cannot be any limits of falling moral values..
“We seldom realize, for example that our most private thoughts and emotions are not actually our own. For we think in terms of languages and images which we did not invent, but which were given to us by our society.”
1. The constitution unfortunately does not give animals any rights, but it does give every human being certain rights, such as the right to life, right to a private life, free expression, etc, as long as they're not infringing another human being's rights.
2. The actions of someone else in the privacy of their home may disgust you, but you being disgusted by something or detesting the thought of it does not give you the right to stop two other humans from exercising that right privately, just as they can not stop you from sitting around in your underpants at home writing comments on the internet.
3. Consent is about making a rational informed decision, which is why under the law children or those with certain mental disabilities or those who are blind drunk or drugged into unconsciousness can not give consent (and it is therefore rape).
An animal is deemed in law to be unable to give informed consent to you having sex with it, because it lacks the requisite intelligence to decide what sex even means.
(However, as a theoretical aside, it is worth noting a double-standard: humans are under law allowed to traffic animals for murder, murder them, torture them in the process considerably and cause them suffering. Yet, sex with an animal is illegal, even though most sex is probably less damaging to most animals than the aforementioned activities. It seems to me that the law cares less about what an animal thinks or feels, and more what other humans are more disgusted by).
1. The constitution unfortunately does not give animals any rights, but it does give every human being certain rights, such as the right to life, right to a private life, free expression, etc, as long as they're not infringing another human being's rights.
2. The actions of someone else in the privacy of their home may disgust you, but you being disgusted by something or detesting the thought of it does not give you the right to stop two other humans from exercising that right privately, just as they can not stop you from sitting around in your underpants at home writing comments on the internet.
3. Consent is about making a rational informed decision, which is why under the law children or those with certain mental disabilities or those who are blind drunk or drugged into unconsciousness can not give consent (and it is therefore rape).
An animal is deemed in law to be unable to give informed consent to you having sex with it, because it lacks the requisite intelligence to decide what sex even means.
(However, as a theoretical aside, it is worth noting a double-standard: humans are under law allowed to traffic animals for murder, murder them, torture them in the process considerably and cause them suffering. Yet, sex with an animal is illegal, even though most sex is probably less damaging to most animals than the aforementioned activities. It seems to me that the law cares less about what an animal thinks or feels, and more what other humans are more disgusted by).[/quote]
[quote name="kianganz"]What rubbish - I don't even know if it's worth responding to this since you don't seem to be making points that have logic or reason at their base.
1. The constitution unfortunately does not give animals any rights, but it does give every human being certain rights, such as the right to life, right to a private life, free expression, etc, as long as they're not infringing another human being's rights.
2. The actions of someone else in the privacy of their home may disgust you, but you being disgusted by something or detesting the thought of it does not give you the right to stop two other humans from exercising that right privately, just as they can not stop you from sitting around in your underpants at home writing comments on the internet.
3. Consent is about making a rational informed decision, which is why under the law children or those with certain mental disabilities or those who are blind drunk or drugged into unconsciousness can not give consent (and it is therefore rape).
An animal is deemed in law to be unable to give informed consent to you having sex with it, because it lacks the requisite intelligence to decide what sex even means.
(However, as a theoretical aside, it is worth noting a double-standard: humans are under law allowed to traffic animals for murder, murder them, torture them in the process considerably and cause them suffering. Yet, sex with an animal is illegal, even though most sex is probably less damaging to most animals than the aforementioned activities. It seems to me that the law cares less about what an animal thinks or feels, and more what other humans are more disgusted by).[/quote]
Kian you seems devoid of logic ... Can you please explain who made constitution and what is constitution..???
http://bit.ly/1JuefGg