Thursday, June 27, 2013

SCOTUS, DOMA, & Other Acronyms to be Named Later



A quick weigh-in on the Supreme's supreme decision yesterday. Although I was not surprised by it, I am generally pleased with the SCOTUS ruling on DOMA. (We coin so many acronyms we're going to need to start adding letters to the alphabet.)  It bothers me, though, that we're celebrating a decision clearly offering indisputable evidence that we have four justices with antediluvian views. We're still only one justice away from a reversal.
I felt like the case was a no-brainer. What difference could it possibly make to anyone to allow everyone to share the same privileges as me? Carolyn and I will continue to celebrate our anniversaries even though Congress will no longer be "defending" our marriage. Actually, I'd suggest we need defense FROM Congress more than BY Congress, but maybe that's just me and maybe that's just THIS Congress.
How can those who argue that they want LESS government turn around and argue that the same government they want less of should restrict the freedoms of their relatives, friends, and neighbors? Although I don't really have a pony in this race, except for friends who deserve equal rights (NOT a minor point, mind you), I have enough quirks that a tolerant, open society certainly smooths over whatever minor discomfort and bumps might result from said idiosyncrasies. 
This case didn't really seem like a tough legal call, although I understand why some would find it a big and bitter political pill to swallow. Progress in civil rights has never been a smooth highway. I am certain that this will not be the last time that those who oppose equal rights will predict that the world as we know it is coming to some apocalyptic end.
   As a fan of irony, though, I promise to try to be tolerant of the intolerant, no matter how deserving I think they might be of at least one of Dante's circles.


1 comment:

  1. "How can those who argue that they want LESS government turn around and argue that the same government they want less of should restrict the freedoms of their relatives, friends, and neighbors? "
    They are the same people who argue that gun control of any kind restricts their second amendment right to defend themselves against the government, but give the federal military machine almost a blank check thereby arming to the teeth the government they want a hundred round clip in their semi-automatic gun to protect themselves from. It is illogical thinking thinking.

    ReplyDelete