While it may be easy for some to move on (to the next big thing), I'm still pondering the events of last week. The proceedings in the Supreme Court were paramount to supporters of marriage equality, as well as to opponents who've compared any additional 'liberties' to same-sex households (now seeking federal recognition and thereby eligible for all the rights, privileges and benefits (approximately 1138) afforded heterosexual couples) as tantamount to the resurrection of Sodom and Gomorrah, or the end of civilization. Justification based upon religious beliefs (for the continuance of DOMA) is hardly novel; the necessity to protect 'responsible procreation' offered by Charles Cooper seemed antiquated, and the argument from Paul Clement (supporting DOMA on behalf of Republicans in the House of Representatives) resting on an alleged federal need for uniformity in administering benefits fell just short of absurdity. All that hubris followed by collective disbelief at the reading of House Report 3396 (which accompanied the passing of DOMA by the 104th Congress); apparently the Republican controlled Congress decided to reflect and honor [of] collective moral judgment and to express(ed) moral disapproval of homosexuality. If this expressed sentiment, no--judgement based on fear/prejudice/bias, isn't reason enough to continue advocating for a separation between church and state, what is? If our elected officials prefer to pander to a more fundamentally-inclined religious base, what chance for advancing liberty and equality for those whose beliefs fall outside of a narrow Judeo-Christian doctrine? And it makes me wonder . . .
For those fortunate among us to be attending the Egg Roll on the White House Lawn, cheers to the delights of chocolate eggs and fuzzy bunnies.
Happy Easter Monday to all.