Equality? Not so sure

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/25/175252608/the-same-sex-marriage-cases-a-primer

A lot of the articles I found about the supreme court seemed to be old and irrelevant until I came across an article that seemed to lack bias and had a very detailed description of exactly what was going on with the supreme court ,rather than why it should be supported or not. The NPR article explained to me things I did not know about the case. I also found the DOMA definition of marriage to unconstitutional and oddly biased. When I thought about this definition I laughed a little bit because of the technologically advance world we live in who’s to say that a man was not once and originally defined as a woman and vice versa.  I also did not know that California once allowed same-sex marriage and is (was) now banning it under proposition 8. When reading the issue part of the first section of the NPR article it said that the Supreme Court could choose to rule in such a way that would only affect California or certain states or all of America. I’d rather it rule in such a way that guaranteed equal protection for all Americans.

Here is a map I found about same-sex marriage state by state:

http://www.npr.org/2009/12/15/112448663/state-by-state-the-legal-battle-over-gay-marriage

The New York Times article as it normally does offered me a large dose of bias. It was in the first sentence,” Beware of conservatives bearing gifts.” The author of this article also called bill Clinton a coward. So I’m not sure where her allegiance lies in terms of parties. This article stood out the most to me because we talk about federalism in class so much and that is the very basis upon which our country is built:

I thought that’s what the case was about, too [marriage equality]. But what reverberated from the bench was the discordant music of federalism – the federalism that almost sank the Affordable Care Act; the federalism that seems about to put a stake through the heart of the Voting Rights Act; the revival of the mid-1990s federalism revolution that had seemed, until recently, to have run its course at the Supreme Court with the departure of two of its most energetic guardians of states’ rights, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

The way the author presented this article made me realize, some people in certain states would be far worse or far better than a neighbor in a different state. How is that fair? I understand that some things should be left to the states, yes understandable. But as the author pointed out many times, and as the constitution states, the federal government JOB and MAIN purpose is equal protection for all its citizens. Another amazing and unbelievable take away:

And of course the most famous federal intervention of all was Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 decision (shockingly recent) that overturned the laws of Virginia and 15 other states prohibiting marriage between people of different races.

1967, Virginia, a white couldn’t marry a black. The federal courts intervened in that. What is the difference in my opinion?  It is my opinion that if you are over the age of 18 you should be able to sign a contract with whomever you want to sign it with, although my religious obligations says this is an abomination, well there’s a separation of church and state for a reason.