US Supreme Court Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage

It was just announced today: in what the news inevitably would call a "historic" decision, the US Supreme court has ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, and also that a state must recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

I was a bit surprised at this decision--even though many pundits had said that it was a likely outcome--because the current makeup of the Court is quite conservative, with the likes of Justice Antonin Scalia who, to my way of thinking, has often shown himself to be extremely conservative (not surprisingly, Scalia was one of the four justices who dissented from the majority decision).

There are those who say that this is "redefining" marriage, and that marriage is a thousands-of-years-old institution. To that I'd like to reply that marriage was "redefined" in 1967, in the famous Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia, which ended bans on inter-racial marriage.

There was a time, maybe 30 years ago, when I did not advocate gay marriage. My position was, "Why should we try to ape heterosexual institutions?" Well, I have long since changed my mind because now I recognize that permitting us (gay people) to marry is to validate our relationships and our love. It is a big step toward permitting us to feel that we are equal members of society, rather than in many ways second-class citizens.

Of course this decision will not go down well with some people. Given that some prejudices run strong in some areas or among some people, and given how gun-happy America seems to be, my fear is that, in one of the "Bible Belt" states, such as Texas, Mississippi, or Alabama, two people of the same sex getting married might get shot while they are trying to "tie the knot."

Also, those same states will find ways to drag their feet and otherwise avoid issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, just as for 150 years they have evolved a repertoire of ways to keep African-Americans from voting. It seems that prejudice--what they'd call preserving their way of life--can spawn a lot of ingenuity.

Copyright (c) 2015

Blackhawks, Blackhawks, Blackhawks. . . .

Every day, for several days, the top story on the TV news here in Chicago has involved the Chicago Blackhawks hockey team.

First it was the day's results as to whether the Blackhawks had won or lost the most recent game they were playing in a six -game championship playoff.

Then it was that they had won enough of the six games and thus won a championship and the accompanying trophy called the Stanley Cup.

Then, yesterday, "The Cup" was being paraded around Chicago with stops at various neighborhoods and locales.

Today, no such news, but the news is about a parade planned for tomorrow having to do with celebrating the Blackhawks' victory and winning "The Cup."

These daily news segments have shown jubilant hockey fans and have consumed about 15 minutes--that is, half of the 30-minute newscast. And I refuse to believe that there were not other things going on in the world that were as newsworthy as this, or more so. To me, to magnify a local concern in this way, so that it is so paramount, seems very provincial.

 

I wish and hope that this Blackhawks stuff will stop after the parade tomorrow; but, given the TV news people's propensity to milk a story for all it's worth, and to keep a story going longer than I would have thought possible, I very likely will not stop hearing about the Blackhawks even then.

Now, I have to say right off that I am not into sports in the least, and absolutely do not get sports fandom. Maybe in that regard I'm a little like the character of Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory in that I fail to understand a certain chunk of our culture, or our society's values, assumptions, and folkways.

To many people it would need no explaining, no analysis; but I am grappling to understand the phenomenon or fandom. I know that people identify with a sports team that is associated with their city, just like they identify with their school (college or lower school), town, country, and so forth. (In the Unites States, several of the 50 states seem to engender in their citizens a sense that they have a special identity.)

But how is one augmented when his (or her)  team wins a game or a multi-game competition? Is it that important for people to be able to say, "Our team beat your team," and thus, presumably, they are made better, or made to feel better?

The matter of group identity has always interested me, and as I see it, it is often not a good thing. We know that sometimes there is fighting between fans of two competing teams. Fans of one team have sometimes been attacked by fans of an opposing team. I think it's like two enemy nations going to war.

Group identity is always a process of identifying and labeling ourselves as "we," and some "others" as "they." This seems to be a very human, and maybe fundamental, trait of the human species. Think about national rivalries, religious wars and persecutions--as well as sports team rivalries.

Copyright (c) 2015