Supreme Court pursues pragmatism, not justice in LGBTQ rights

The Supreme Court of the United States, if oral arguments heard on Tuesday and Wednesday are an indication, is not likely to expand civil and human rights for LGBTQ Americans in all 50 states.

It reflects pragmatism, not justice.

Polls show increasing support among Americans for marriage equality. Telling Alabama, Mississippi, or Kentucky, however, that they must recognize same-gender marriage might set off a worse reaction than the government banning gun ownership and attempting to confiscate firearms.

The court is probably sensitive to the social and cultural reactions to a 50-state solution. Currently, 38 states ban same-gender marriage. Reality trumps fairness.

In a case heard Tuesday, justices expressed reservations about moving too soon, too fast on permitting marriage for same-gender couples throughout the country. The opinion issued from the bench, probably in mid-summer, likely will be narrow and stay contained to California’s ballot initiative restricting marriage.

Wednesday’s hearing pertained to the Defense of Marriage Act. It carries less socially charged baggage since the issues involve economic benefits, not undermining a so-called sacred institution thus potentially toppling civilization. In comparison, emotions are less intense and more rational.

Economic fairness is less threatening and deals with something as mundane as taxes and paying less of them, which most Americans support.

This does not mean the court will rule the entire act unconstitutional. It is possible the court will narrowly balance limited federal benefits while reserving a determination for a future case regarding what rights the US Constitution guarantees for LGBTQ citizens.

In each case, the court’s cautious approach underscores how social constructs can make justice fickle, illusive, and subjected to social and political pressures. There is injustice when the opinions of a majority determine the rights of those who seem different, especially when their rights would not threaten anyone’s marriage or personal well-being in the ruling majority.

Pure justice does not translate into “what the majority wants, the majority gets.” One of the fundamental hallmarks of justice is protecting the rights of a minority against the tyranny of the majority.

Segregation in the South is one such example. The court determined the white majority could not impose its definition of equal on black and African Americans in the South.

Nineteenth century British Prime Minister William Gladstone observed, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Although he meant it in a different context, the phrase has much relevance in LGBTQ civil and human rights.

It is a cold, harsh, and unjust probability, but more likely than not full justice will be delayed. In looking at the big picture, however, the social and cultural trends are supportive of same-gender marriage. More Americans are aware and responsive to LGBTQ economic and professional inequality.

Regardless of any narrow rulings, the court for the first time in its history has taken on the issue of expanding LGBTQ civil and human rights, even if only incrementally, thus enhancing a larger, positive, national dialogue.

If you like to write about US politics, enter Allvoices’ “The American Pundit” political writing contest. Allvoices is awarding four $250 prizes each month between now and Nov. 30. These monthly winners earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize, to be awarded in December. If you do not already have a free account, sign up here.

The American Pundit on Twitter:

Allvoices on Twitter:

Allvoices on Facebook:

Paul Jesep is a policy analyst, corporate chaplain, and author of “Lost Sense of Self & the Ethics Crisis: Learn to Live and Work Ethically”; “Credit Card Usury and the Christian Failure to Stop It”; and “Crucifying Jesus and Secularizing America – the Republic of Faith without Wisdom”.
PJesep is based in Schenectady, New York, United States of America, and is an Anchor for Allvoices.

BY PJesep
Source – All Voices