Check out my blog! I’m posting a new post on the hour, every hour, for a year!! http://24blogsaday.wordpress.com
I also have a photoblog http://ghphoto.wordpress.com

First off, I don’t understand why people whom gay marriage has no impact upon can be so vehement in their opposition towards it. I can understand that deep feeling for abortion even if I don’t share it. If you believe that abortion is murder than it would go to the core of your being to protect that life. Even in exceptions for the life of the mother, if in the core of you being you see abortion is murder, you cannot accept this as a condition. Murder is wrong and if protecting the mother required murdering an innocent person it too would be wrong. But marriage? If people were truly concerned about marriage they would fight against divorce. They would fight to preserve marriages, not fight to deny marriages. I don’t hear loud condemnations of Larry King (8 marriages, 7 divorces), Rush Limbaugh (3 marriages, 3 divorces), Britney Spears (2 marriages, 2 divorces. Well, 1 divorce and 1 annulment to protect the life of the mother).

Secondly, the Supreme Court pick. I guess I hear something different than Roy when I hear empathy. What I hear is that Obama is looking for a variety people with a variety of life experiences to occupy the bench. A Puerto Rican who grew up in the projects will interpret the Constitution differently than someone from Indiana who went to Catholic boarding school. Both views are valid, but both views will be different and it’s important to have a cross section of the people that make up the country represented on the court. If there was but one way to read the Constitution there would be no need to have nine members of the court, one would be sufficient. But it was written in a way that hundreds of years in the future, when there would be cases ruling on issues that didn’t exist at the time, the Constitution could still be the framework from which to work. It is a flawed document that originally included slavery and excluded the Bill of Rights. Written by flawed people who, despite their varied backgrounds and philosophies, were able to find common ground. And it works flaws and all, just like all of us.

The only reason I can come up with that someone would argue against diversity on the court is that the homogeny of the court represents the one arguing. I suppose if there were 9 balding gay agnostics on the court I might question the need for diversity on the court. But I’d be wrong. Is it the same for gay marriage? Is it as simple as, “I have mine and you can’t have yours.” I hope not. Someone doesn’t have to lose if everyone wins.

There’s a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. Have you considered lobbying your Congresscritter to change the Federal law?