41-The Silent Fraud of the Supreme Court

Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain – Wikipedia.

What is the fraud of the Supreme Court's non-ruling ruling? What unfair or unlawful gain did they secure? What is the deception?

Total marriage equality is the future. Any attempt to sew doubt is deception. Delaying equal rights is unfair and unlawful. With their silence, the Justices placate the plaintiffs – those who claim marriage equality causes harm. Their gain is temporary reprieve (e.g. Idaho), but at what cost? If the Supreme Court had instructed the states to follow the precedence set by the federal courts until real harm could be shown through due process, legalization could have been assumed in all fifty states. Instead, we continue to slog through the mire, building a perfect union state by state. The fundamental right to form and define one's family both socially and legally, has been expanded but remains exclusive.

The ruling was correct. But without comment they leave the door open and delay justice. Justice delayed is justice denied. Many will suffer despite the court upholding the lower courts rulings. Bigotry and hatred are not discouraged in the dwindling outliers. Without a clear voice, there is no directive to protect, no standard to enforce. Those desperate to fight the sunrise remain blind to reason and compassion. Until justice blankets the whole of our union, those of conscious share the suffering of the excluded. Until this vague limbo ends, the fraud doubles-down by forcing upon the victim the duty of their own liberation. Imagine refusing to refund the astronomical bail paid by the falsely accused. All the resource and time required to render the exhausting ladder of court-rulings necessary to free the People will be the sole burden of the advocate and taxpayer. This ruling feels like an army in defeat, scorching the land in retreat.

The very idea states can carve-out segments of citizens for the sole purpose of excluding them from the rights all others enjoy is unconstitutional in its very conception. Future favorable rulings by federal courts will make prolonged stays upon appeal less appealing. The growing consensus means judges will have less reason to delay justice. But will they ever rule in favor of intolerance? What is the counter-argument? Setting aside the outlandish, hyperbolic attempts to connect the issue with bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, etc., the idea traditional marriage value is degraded by marriage equality because marriage will no longer be the ideal or preferred situation for heterosexual couples is absurd, as if straight people will lose interest in marriage. Marriage has value. It is a legal contract, recognized by legal institutions that allows people to determine the definition of their family, a legally-binding institution. Without the right of writ, family rights are not recognized.

The fact that the court did not sit on this illuminates the closed-door negotiations. I imagine that the just side asked for no delay in announcing the outcome but in return capitulated with their silence. Whatever, at least they stuck to one aspect of their branch's core: timely resolution of constitutional conflict. Because there was no conflict, the Court gave deference to unanimous consent. The suggestion of Utah's Governor that they didn't look at the cases is an insult to the Court. It wasn't that they didn't look at them but they couldn't find the conflict necessary to require their consideration. They may never rule on the issue. Instead, they may eventually issue something binding. Even if they never say another word, their silence cannot stop the inevitable. This petty victory by the wrong side of the Court is an injury that will thankfully not be suffered by coming generations.

What this boils down to is the ability for all citizens to enter into the contract of marriage with all of its inherit rights, privileges, benefits, and costs. There was a time when only white men of age and means could enter into contract. Times change. Minds change. People grow old and die. Those who oppose this have no standing. Their efforts are doomed to pass away as they fade away. But how long will they drag this out? How much suffering will they be responsible for? Where does the dark hole of their hatred end? With all their platitudes of religious compassion, is it any wonder they may never own up to the damage their actions have created? They cannot maintain the mystique of charismatic piety while simultaneously admitting to this brutal injury. When they realize their error, will we be surprised should they blame everything under the sun except themselves?

It is ironic those most vicious, most set against marriage equality, are those first to deal with its reality. Having its own constitutional amendment barring marriage equality struck down, Utah is the home of the Mormon Church, the impetuous behind prop eight in California. Here's an idea: maybe the greatest advocates for marriage equality are the opponents. How? Consider that the greatest engine of change is the purity of the opposition's swift assault. If they had spent more effort slowing the process instead of going for the jugular with constitutional amendments, we may have reached this same point in the twenty-twenties. Could it be that their unabashed vitriol vastly accelerated the progress? It's debatable; the fact they are the first to feel the change isn't. May they accept reality and realize their marriage is not failing because two guys in Baltimore just got hitched. Their marriage is failing because they can't make it work.