SUPREME COURT OF US HAS MADE SAME SEX MARRIAGE A RIGHT NATIONWIDE, ON THIS FRIDAY 26TH JUNE 2015. WHAT DOES ASHRAF ASMI ADVOCATE ,HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST WRITE ABOUT THIS
Indeed it is the matter of acute concern for the humanity , the decision
of same –sex marriage, no doubt, we are here in this world by the mercy of
great God, all the holy religions forbade to get same sex marriage. When ever
human being took any step against the nature, or against the will of god, it
would always proved negative for the humanity .This news about the supreme
court of US decision that the same sex marriage is permitted on the bases of equality of
rights, then the court should also
permitted that the it was also liberty to marry with animals too. This decision
is totally against the nature, the object of the marriage is spend life in a
social manner and for the legitimate of
the kids. But now the story is different, now the male person and females
persons can get marriage with same sex. It is the liberty and equality of right
which was decided by the Justice Anthony Kennedy e "No
longer may this liberty be denied,"
Is can it be termed as a wise decision.
Is it the out come of socialization of the society , Same-sex
couples won the right to marry nationwide as a divided Supreme Court handed a
crowning victory to the gay rights movement, setting off a jubilant cascade of
long-delayed weddings in states where they had been forbidden.The vote was
narrow - 5-4 - but Kennedy's majority opinion was clear and firm: "The
court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to
marry."The ruling issued Friday will put an end to same-sex marriage bans
in the 14 states that still maintain them, and provide an exclamation point for
breathtaking changes in the nation's social norms in recent years. As recently
as last October, just over one-third of the states permitted gay
marriages.Kennedy's reading of the ruling elicited tears in the courtroom,
euphoria outside and the immediate issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex
couples in at least eight states. In Dallas ,
Kenneth Denson said he and Gabriel Mendez had been legally married in 2013 in California but "we're Texans; we want to get married
in Texas ."In
praise of the decision, President Barack Obama called it "justice that
arrives like a thunderbolt."Four of the court's justices weren't cheering.
The dissenters accused their colleagues of usurping power that belongs to the
states and to voters, and short-circuiting a national debate about same-sex
marriage."This court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a
good idea should be of no concern to us," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote
in dissent. Roberts read a summary of his dissent from the bench, the first
time he has done so in nearly 10 years as chief justice."If you are among
the many Americans - of whatever sexual orientation - who favor expanding
same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision," Roberts said.
"But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with
it."Justice Antonin Scalia said he was not concerned so much about
same-sex marriage as "this court's threat to American democracy." He
termed the decision a "judicial putsch." Justices Samuel Alito and
Clarence Thomas also dissented.Several religious organizations criticized the
decision.The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said it was "profoundly
immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex
can constitute a marriage."Kennedy said nothing in the court's ruling
would force religions to condone, much less perform, weddings to which they
object. And he said the couples seeking the right to marry should not have to
wait for the political branches of government to act.The 14th Amendment to the
Constitution requires states to allow same-sex couples to marry on the same
basis as heterosexuals, he said"The dynamic of our constitutional system
is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a
fundamental right. The nation's courts are open to injured individuals who come
to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic
charter," Kennedy wrote in his fourth major opinion in support of gay
rights since 1996. It came on the anniversary of two of those earlier
decisions."No union is more profound than marriage," Kennedy wrote,
joined by the court's four more liberal justices.The stories of the people
asking for the right to marry "reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage
but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses' memory, joined by its
bond," Kennedy said.As he read his opinion, spectators in the courtroom
wiped away tears when the import of the decision became clear. One of those in
the audience was James Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court
fight.Outside, Obergefell held up a photo of his late spouse, John Arthur, and
said the ruling establishes that "our love is equal." He added,
"This is for you, John."Obama placed a congratulatory phone call to
Obergefell, which he took amid a throng of reporters outside the
courthouse.Speaking a few minutes later at the White House, Obama praised the
decision as an affirmation of the principle that "all Americans are
created equal."The crowd in front of the courthouse at the top of Capitol
Hill grew in the minutes following the ruling. The Gay Men's Chorus of
Washington, D.C., sang "The Star-Spangled Banner." Motorists honked
their horns in support as they passed by the crowd, which included a smattering
of same-sex marriage opponents.The ruling will not take effect immediately
because the court gives the losing side roughly three weeks to ask for
reconsideration. But county clerks in Alabama ,
Georgia , Mississippi ,
Ohio , North Dakota ,
South Dakota , Tennessee
and Texas began issuing licenses to same-sex
couples within hours of the decision.The cases before the court involved laws
from Kentucky , Michigan ,
Ohio and Tennessee that define marriage as the union
of a man and a woman. Those states have not allowed same-sex couples to marry
within their borders, and they also have refused to recognize valid marriages
from elsewhere.Just two years ago, the Supreme Court struck down part of the
federal anti-gay marriage law that denied a range of government benefits to
legally married same-sex couples.Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor formed the majority with Kennedy on Friday, the
same lineup as two years ago.The earlier decision in United States v. Windsor
did not address the validity of state marriage bans, but courts across the
country, with few exceptions, said its logic compelled them to invalidate state
laws that prohibited gay and lesbian couples from marrying.There are an
estimated 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States, according to
UCLA's Williams Institute, which tracks the demographics of gay and lesbian
Americans. Another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit
them to wed would get married in the next three years, the institute says.
Roughly 1 million same-sex couples, married and unmarried, live together in the
United States ,
the institute says.The Obama administration backed the right of same-sex
couples to marry. The Justice Department's decision to stop defending the
federal anti-marriage law in 2011 was an important moment for gay rights, and
Obama declared his support for same-sex marriage in 2012.This is the whole story of the current decision by the US
Supreme court. What is the status of
marriage in the Shari'a? Is it obligatory or merely allowed? Some
of the Hanafi scholars have broken this question down into different cases:If a
person feels certain that he will commit something forbidden if he does not
marry and he has the financial ability to marry, then marriage is in his case fardh (the highest level of the obligatory
in Hanafi terminology).If a person has the ability to marry and treat his wife
properly and fears (strong probability) that he will engage in unlawful acts if
he doesn't, then marriage in his case is wajib (obligatory).If a person
does not have the financial or physical means to marry or feels certain that he
will not treat his wife properly then marriage in his case is haram (forbidden).If a person has the means
to marry, but feels strongly that he will not treat his wife properly, marriage
in his case is makrooh (disliked).
1. If
a person has the means to marry and has no fear of mistreating his wife or of
committing the unlawful if he doesn't marry, then marriage in his case is mustahabb (preferred).This
last opinion is widely regarded as the "default" (al-asl) ruling in this
question i.e., marriage, generally speaking is the preferred but not obligatory
way and only becomes obligatory, forbidden, etc. in the exceptional cases.Since
the man is normally the one who goes looking for a spouse and proposes to her
family, etc., these discussions normally focus on him. Every point in the
above discussion, however, applies to women equally as it does to men.The Dhaahiri (Literalist) Opinion,In the Literalist school of thought,
marriage is considered fardh
'ain - an absolute and
individual obligation. Among the evidence they cite are the following
verse from the Qur'an and hadith of the Prophet (saw).{Wa ankihoo
al-ayaamaa minkum wa as-saliheena min 'ibaadikum wa imaa'ikum in yakunoo
fuqara'a yughnihimu Allahu min fadhlihi wa Allahu wasi'un 'aleem (22) Wa
lyasta'fif illadhina laa yajiduna nikahan hatta yughniahumu Alahu min fadhlihi}{And marry off the single among you and
among the righteous of your male and female slaves. If they are poor then
Allah will supply their needs from His generosity. And Allah is expansive,
knowing. (22) And let those who do not find marriage hold back until
Allah grants them of His generosity.} An-Noor 24:32-33The following hadith of the Prophet (sas)
seems to be a blanket "order" to all those with the capability to get
married:"Yaa ma'shara ash-shabaab man istataa'a minkum al-ba'a
falyatazawwaj.""O young men, whoever among you has the
ability, let him marry." Bukhari
& Muslim.Conclusion Concerning
the Ruling of MarriageThe
opinion that marriage is - overall - preferred (mustahabb)
seems to be the strongest opinion. Ibn Uthaimeen further points out that
if a person desires to be married, it becomes even more important. He
said: "Marriage in the case of desire for such is preferred over
superogatory acts of worship, due to the many good results and praiseworthy
effects it has."Also, it is clear that there is a collective obligation (fardh
kifaya) on the Ummah as a whole to promote, defend and facilitate the
institution of marriage. If marriage suffers from neglect or, for
example, unreasonably high dowries which force people to postpone marriage too
long, it is a collective obligation on the Ummah to come to its aid and to ensure
that as many people as possible live within the context of a marriage.
Also, if a the Muslims come to have too many single women because of the
abandonment of polygamy, it become a collective obligation on the Muslims to
address and correct this situation. This is all clearly based on the
command of Allah in the verse previously cited which starts out:
