15-06.24.119 in Book Two: The Fifteenth Year of the Third Millennium of the Common Era

NOT that it is in any way a surprise but… I need a full time job, lol.
Apparently, I was so excited to actually have work today… I wrote down my shifts wrong. I work (Interviews -> Court -> Interviews) today and I wrote down (Court -> Interviews -> Court -> Interviews) adding a shift and thus coming to work a full 2 hours early! It is reasons like this why I was sorely tempted to pick up an application to Baker’s Grocery the other day. Obviously, that would be a waste. Doing a job NOW that I did when I was 16? I mean… 16 years old… I was filming my first movie, needed money to drive to the shoots and afford food, no High School diploma… makes sense. Now? High School Diploma, Bachelor’s Degree, Juris Doctor and specialization certificate in Litigation. But… it was sorely tempting. A job I could walk to that would pay full time hours and give me something to do while waiting for a professional career opportunity?

---

So… this morning, I got to work around 9 am… waited… did Interviews… yeah, work wasn’t out of the ordinary except for getting there stupid early. Then it was time to race home in hopes that my package had arrived. As my Screen Name suggests (via obscure reference) I am a Batman Fan. In order to play as The Red Hood, I pre-ordered ARKHAM KNIGHT. Pre-ordering, though, means I don’t get the game WHEN it comes out… I have to wait to receive it via the mail. Irritating bullshit, but it is okay. Well… it would be nice to get this game before vacation… so I kept hoping it would be in the mail before Sunday. Shipment alert told me that it was waiting for me. So now I really want to get home to play.

But at the same time… GUH. lol. Packing and writing stories and cleaning. Oh, what to do :p

---

Random… my right lower eyelid keeps twitching. It is getting SUPER annoying!!

In other news, as I’m sure all of you are by now aware, Gay Marriage is legal in all states. I’ve written many essays on this topic and even won Kudos from a liberal speech judge about my viewpoint but I will reiterate it here as a courtesy.

The institution of marriage is held as a sacred union according to a majority of religious faiths in this world. Not merely Christian faiths, but all Abrahamic faith traditions and many Eastern faiths. However, we live in a country that specifically and explicitly declares that the state shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. This means that the state can, at no time, establish a State Religion or write laws that would give specific unjust favor to a specific religion. The “respecting the establishment of religion” is the whole extent of Constitutional state/church separation. It can be viewed in many ways and has been argued repeatedly in every court in the Nation. As marriage is considered sacred by many faiths, it could be argued that the State making laws in regards to marriage establishes a religion; the arguments against this interpretation are prolific and can easily be Googled. However, I am of the opinion that, in regards to marriage, we throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are a number of state-specific reasons to respect unions between two individuals and to offer special legal status to those individuals that chose to be joined by a civil contract. These laws are already written and clearly established. Civil contract law, while cold and unromantic, can easily be adapted from Partnership language to partnership language. Therefore, the state should at no time respect or legally regulate the institution of “marriage” but instead make available for all parties wishing to receive proper legal status as a “joined union” the same rights and responsibilities under the legal and spiritually neutral contract language offered by a “Civil Union.” Thus, all legally protected unions whether heterosexual, homosexual, or poly-amorous would receive the same rights and obligations without the religious and spiritual concepts attached by language. Those individuals wishing to be married may seek to be joined by their respective religious faith.

In other words, TL;DR: The government shouldn’t do anything with “marriages” as the concept is inherently religious. The license and state protections should be offered to Civil Unions… period. Civil Unions for all peoples wishing to be recognized as a household under the law.
Therefore, my response to today’s decision would be… GOOD! If we aren’t going to correct the religion/state issue by dealing with the questionable word choice; then we need to acknowledge that Government Marriage must be available to all citizens while acknowledging that Religious Marriage remains the sole purview of the church; allowing the church (regardless of faith tradition) to refuse to perform ceremonies that are against the beliefs of that faith. I am pleased that the Supreme Court ruled the way it did and, after reading the decision thoroughly, find their legal reasoning acceptable.

Scalia’s dissent, while entertaining and well worded, confuses me on a legal level as he seems to be suggesting that the Constitution does not protect the liberties of individuals. While, in its inception, the Constitution was written and intended to be merely a contract and group of laws regarding State and Federal relationships; the history of the Supreme Court since the 1900s has certainly dictated that individual liberty is to be protected. Especially protected from government intrusion and interference. After all, what is the 4th Amendment if not a specific protection from undue interference of an individual from the government?

Further, as to State’s Rights claims… State’s Rights are important and it seems our government far too quickly forgets that. We are a Dual Sovereignty nation which means Federal AND State have the right to create and execute law. However, a constantly agreed-upon use of Federal law is to protect State Citizens from unjust discrimination while moving freely within the country. It is why Georgia cannot legally charge you added tax if you purchase an item from the state while being an out of state resident. That issue is key to part of today’s decision. Individuals marrying one another in states where it is legal were moving to (or moved back to) states where gay marriage was not legal. This created a legitimate problem of Federal Level jurisdiction. Heterosexual marriages have long been upheld as “lacking state boundaries.” Further, restricting something of this nature to merely a State Law claim ignores that “family planning and marriage” have, in fact, been Federal Questions (thus giving claimants federal standing) since 1967 (or earlier).

BTW- I saw a sign at the SCOTUS steps that said “Protect our religious freedom” and it makes me face palm. If the government isn’t expressly requiring your church to do something or forbidding your church from doing something… then your religious freedom has not been infringed upon. In fact, the Supreme Court decision expressly states that those opposed to Gay Marriage may still protest and forbid their churches from performing those services as protected by the first amendment. I understand that my education is unique… there are few out there with Religion Degrees and Law Degrees… but some of the stuff I’m reading/hearing today? It seems obvious that people are not reading… not reading their own scriptures, not reading their own constitutions, not reading anything… but instead are simply repeating what someone else told them. Which… honestly seems like the biggest issue with America and too many other populations. Why use your own brain when someone else can do all the thinking and tell YOU how to feel and what to think!