Proud to be a Part of the 58%

I am not a person who seeks out confrontation or looks for ways to offend people. While I know this is a controversial topic, I am proud to be a member of the 58%! I shared this picture on Facebook, but I have more to say about it.

 

As a student of American History/Government I find it sad that in the year 2013 there are still forms of discrimination that are being heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. I have a strong love for the television series, The West Wing. In fact it is a source of great comfort to me when everything around me is falling apart. Perhaps it is because I like their brand of governing better than the world we currently live in. I mean peace between Israel and Palestine; a solution to Social Security; a female Chief Justice of the United States...

 

As the internet is flooded with support for the amicus brief that has been filed on behalf of two same sex couples before the Supreme Court I find myself thinking of one of my favorite episodes from the show, "The Supremes."

In this episode, Owen Brady, the conservative anchor of the Supreme Court, has died. Evelyn Baker Lang (Glenn Close), a federal judge, is brought in by the President's senior staff to appease the left and frighten the right and hence make the confirmation of their real choice, moderate Judge Brad Shelton easier. In the process, the brilliance of Justice Lang becomes clear. An andecote about a married couple who have long since given up compromise decide to get two cats rather than picking one or the other leads to a controversial but brilliant solution; the White House will ask ailing Chief Justice Roy Ashland to resign (since the Supreme Court is a life-time appointment) to be replaced by Lang. In return for her confirmation they will give Republicans the opportunity to name a conservative to replace Brady. Josh's argument is based on the belief that the court would be better served by the maintenance of the status quo (a staunch liberal chief justice and a staunch conservative associate justice) rather than the nomination of a moderate. 
 -Wikipedia

Although I consider myself a moderate with a liberal leaning tendency, I am not the type who would tend to make history.

 

So what does this have to do with Prop 8 or Defensive of Marriage Act (DOMA) When the staunch conservative is brought into the White House to meet with senior staff, an argument over DOMA quickly ensues. It is only when Justice Lang happens upon the meeting that she explains that Christopher Mulready (the extremely conservative nominee) is simply yanking everyone's chain. While he does not love the idea of gay marriage, he takes more issue with federal over-reaching. Where in the Constitution does it give our legislators a right to determine the definition of marriage?

 

Now, I also understand that there is a religious argument to be made here. I do not know all the specifics, but I know that I believe in a God who loves all his children. I am of the opinion that being gay is  not a choice, nor do I think that it is something wrong that should/could be cured. Even if one does have a moral opposition, and one is entitled to such an opinion, how is that aspect of the argument allowed in the legislative debate? Where is the separation of church and state? I cannot delve too far here since I am not scholarly enough in my biblical interpretation. I just know that my studies on constitutional intepretation have not yielded an understanding of the government's ability and/or right to define marriage!

 

I just want all my friends/loved ones to have the right and opportunity to stand before their friends, families, and God (if they see it that way), and marry their love/best friend as I did last September.

 

*Stepping down from my soap box*