What Does “Love Wins” Really Mean?

Words mean things, yet many times, especially when crafted for marketing or political reasons, words can be bent to mean something completely different or masked to cover up the reality (if you are lucky enough to be talking about marketing, you usually get a lot of legalese fine-print to explain what is really meant.)

So, in the Supreme Court decision of 'OBERGEFELL v. HODGES', the court ruled 5-4 that same-sex marriage was constitutional (per the 14th amendment's Due Process Clause, for those that care about such things.) and there was joy in the streets. Shortly thereafter, anyone that lives even briefly in the social media realm, was bombarded with #LoveWins. I cringed instantly. Words mean things, and I felt that didn't mean what everyone believed it meant.

Now I did not cringe because same-sex marriages are now allowed in all 50 states. I would have cringed just as much if the ruling went 4-5 and we were subjected with #LoveLoses instead.

So I will start my deconstruction of the term 'Love Wins' as such. Did love suddenly blossom to life because of what 5 people out of a group of 9 decided? To make it even a bit more stark, if you look at it from a differential, what technically just one person decided?

The love between people who were hoping for the ruling that occurred existed well before the ruling. The love would have still existed if the ruling was such that it was kicked back to being a states-right issue. Love didn't win, for it was already there. The only thing that 'won' was to have that love allowed to be legally celebrated in the form of a marriage across the country, and to have all of the trappings and restrictions that a marriage brings with it.

I will further argue, that 'Love was winning' way before the court got involved. By the time of the ruling, only 14 of the 50 states still did not recognize same-sex marriage. Further, the 36 that did all did so in nearly the last 10 years. That is an amazing change if you think about it. It is actually a testament to how wonderful a system based on liberty can change. Can right a wrong. Can adapt.

If the ruling would have gone 4-5 instead, I would have personally been surprised if more than 5 states were still left 10 years from now as not allowing same-sex marriages. The hearts and minds of Americans, on the whole, have slowly shifted on the issue. But, for every state where a vote was cast to allow same-sex marriage, you could more easily argue that 'love was winning' in those states. Because it took a majority of people, many that were not gay, to make same-sex marriage a reality there. The movement, regardless of the side of the argument you were/are on, was already, in my humble opinion, practically a fait accompli. It really was only a matter of time. So, looking at it in this prism, the movement was cheated a bit. Yes, the slow slog of changing the populous' hearts and minds is slow, and requires patience. However, the victory is deeper that way. I would rather win any argument by changing the hearts and minds of many, instead of the argument being won just on the difference of one person.

If 'Love Wins', what lost? Hate? Hardly. I have seen enough passion and hate spewed on both sides of the argument over the last few days to make demons envious. Hate hardly lost, if anything, the ruling only inflamed some of it. Are the 4 judges that voted against it in the 'anti-love-wins' camp? If you read their dissents, you might be surprised that is not the case. Many times, only one or two dissents are written. This time 4 were and each were quite insightful for anyone that wishes to read them. I read the words across my screen, 'Scalia is a hateful bigit' more than once. I could almost see how that could be the case, if you took what he wrote in his dissent out of context. You would be hard pressed to feel that way if you read the whole thing though. (And for those that are afraid to read the ruling or dissenting opinions, they are written to be understood by all, not just to be understood by lawyers.)

Does a legal marriage even equate to love? Again, hardly. I know quite a few people that are legally married, yet love is not part of the equation. Either in a yet way (because the marriages were arranged) or because the couple now hate each other's guts and for whatever reason, have not had their marriage contract nullified yet. Love and civil marriage do not explicitly go hand in hand, and they never did.

So what does 'Love Wins' mean to me? It is to me, just political patter, clever political patter, but political patter all the same. It now joins in the annals of my mind, other clever, yet cringe-worthy political patter terms like 'homeland security', 'undocumented worker', 'red state', 'blue state', 'purple state'.

I am happy that more people now feel like they get to brave the institution of marriage; but as I expressed earlier, love won a long time ago, way before what the majority of nine people wearing robes decided. For me, that matters much more.