I am in total disbelief to the responses of the dissenters of the Supreme Court's recent ruling for marriage equality. From John Roberts and Antonin Scalia to Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, they all sound like some of the Republicans who spew garbage out of their ignorant mouths. Because of their topsy-turvy thinking, I just have to respond with my two cents.
Hot Dough: Hollywood: Take Notes From The Walking Dead
My first cent, in response to Antonin Scalia...
Justice Antonin Scalia said:
"So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about
marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that
rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320
million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on
the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension
in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s
claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its
Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision
by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today)
by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important
liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the
Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."
Scalia, where were you when your high school teacher made each student recite the Declaration of Independence? Hiding behind the bleachers daydreaming, perhaps? Reading history books? Skipping class?
Regardless, you are excused for whatever you did back then. But, you are not excused for not knowing the Declaration of Independence. You are a Supreme Court Justice. You cannot have a lengthy legal career without comprehending what America was founded upon. In it, the Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
If all people are indeed created equal, why can only a man and a woman marry, and benefit from things derived from their marriage? Marriage should be allowed between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a transgender and a transgender, and so forth. That's equality. If marriage is restricted to only a certain type of relationship, that's inequality.
Furthermore, if all people are endowed with liberty, aren't they free to marry whomever they want to marry?
And lastly, your statement "the freedom to govern themselves" TOTALLY contradicts the exact thing you support. If people are free to govern themselves, then they are free to marry whomever they want.
Get it together, Scalia.
My second cent, in response to Bobby Jindal...
Republican Bobby Jindal said, "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. My
faith teaches me that, my Christian faith teaches me that. I'm not for
discrimination against anybody."
Sure, your Christian faith teaches you that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's your personal choice to believe in that faith, and to act in accordance to that faith. But it is not your right, nor the right of any governmental entity, to deny people their right to exercise their religious faith, whatever that may be. If the Supreme Court were to ban same-sex marriage, it would violate people's religious freedom, their freedom to marry. And that religious freedom, is a constitutional right. Please step down as governor - you clearly need to retake Law 101.
And since you're totally in support of banning same-sex marriage, you ARE discriminating against the group of people who want to enter into a legal marital partnership not as a man and a woman. Not only do you not know the Fundamental Rights, you outright LIED.
Thank goodness the Supreme Court ruled in favor of #marriageforall #MarriageEquality.
