Here at Escort Wales, we have always been a great supporter of gay marriage. This really is s human rights issue. Everyone has the right to be happy, and if any loving couple want to share that bond through marriage, who should really stop them? Hey, they will soon work out that marriage isn’t all it has cracked up to be!
This is why we were so impressed with U.S Supreme Court Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who gave a glowing endorsement of gay marriage, in the court case which is deciding on the constitutionality of the change in marriage law.
Our Kind of Woman
Whilst Ginsburg has always been a supporter of equal rights throughout her long, distinguished career, it was her comparison to a civil rights issue that really struck home.
“Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition,” said Ginsburg when Justices Roberts and Kennedy began to fret about whether the court had a right to challenge centuries of tradition.
“Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female,” she explained. “That ended as a result of this court’s decision in 1982 when Louisiana’s Head and Master Rule was struck down … Would that be a choice that state should [still] be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?”
“No,” replied John Bursch, the somewhat chastised lawyer for the states who are seeking to preserve their ban on gay marriage.
Mr Bursch got it good style off her later when he tried to argue that marriage was solely an attempt to create a stable home for children to grow up in.
“Suppose a couple, 70-year-old couple, comes in and they want to get married?” remarked the 82-year-old Ginsburg, to laughter, after a protracted debate over whether it was fair to ask couples if they wanted children before allowing them to wed.
“You don’t have to ask them any questions. You know they are not going to have any children.”
She also helped out a lawyer for gay marriage petitioners who seemed to be struggling with whether other states who ban gay marriage would have to recognise marriages that were performed in other states. What if another state allowed a marriage of a youngster after puberty? Interesting concept.
“I think, the presumption would be in such a state that someone age 13 can’t consent,” interjected Ginsburg helpfully.
She wrapped it up with the argument that we have been saying for years. That is that no-one is actually being harmed.
“All of the incentives, all of the benefits that marriage affords would still be available,” said Ginsburg. “So you’re not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very same incentive to marry, all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now.”
This isn’t the end of the case, although it arguably should be. The Supreme Court will come back in June with a decision, and it is hoped that Ginsburg will have convinced all her other colleagues that equality is the way to go.
We can only hope!
Since then, he has specialised in articles on the battle for equal rights for sex workers, sexual health, as well as bringing the readers fun news from around the world. He also has a major interest in LGBT rights, and is an active campaigner in this field.
When he isn't fighting the good fight, he enjoys spending time with his girlfriend, and young daughter. He also enjoys reading and taking long walks.
Latest posts by Martin Ward (see all)
- Woman Breaks Partner’s Penis During X-Factor Sex Mishap - November 1, 2017
- Do You Fancy a Holiday With 60 Prostitutes? - October 11, 2017
- Senator Ted Cruz Caught ‘Liking’ a Porn Video on Twitter - September 12, 2017