NOH8

My best friend Brittaney is a lot of things. She is the mother of twins, a full-time high school science teacher, a member of a competitive rowing team and on the side, she is getting her Ph.D. Yes, that is what I said: P-H-D. Among other things, Brittaney is an awesome cook, can knit a mean scarf and tears up any wedding dance floor if given the opportunity. She inspires me daily and is a constant reminder you can do anything you want in life. And yes, there are times when she makes me feel a tiny bit guilty as I think to myself, "Maybe there is something slightly more productive you could be doings besides watching 'Real Housewives of New Jersey' reruns." Like, for example, write an awesome letter like the one she wrote below. You know, in all her free time.

Dear ProtectMarriage,

Thank you so much for requesting that Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling on Proposition 8 be set aside. You are so right, as a gay man who will surely be affected by the decision of Proposition 8, his ruling cannot be taken seriously. However, I think you stopped short of following your claim to its logical conclusion:

1. Judge Walker cannot be allowed to rule on legislation that will directly effect him as he will not be impartial.

2. On your website you state that, "the benefits to society of traditional marriage are overwhelming." Therefore, it can be deduced that the legalization of gay marriage will negate these "benefits."

3. It follows then, that heterosexual couples also have a stake in this debate and, just as Judge Walker, all heterosexual individuals who are either married, or have a desire to one day become married, should be barred from ruling on Proposition 8 as well.

4. Therefore, only asexual judges with neither positive nor negative views about marriage should be chosen to rule over this issue.

5. Although, that still leaves this sticky situation: Since civil rights issues by definition effect society as a whole, no individual that is a member of our society should be allowed to rule on issues of civil rights. After all, they will be affected by their choice and cannot be considered impartial.

Get ready America--we have a lot of legislative rulings to review. Wouldn't it be so much easier if we just required judges to take an oath to uphold the law, regardless of their personal beliefs? I propose something like this:

"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _____ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

We could call it something catchy like "United States Code, Title 28, Part 1, Chapter 21, Section 453."

Sincerely,

Brittaney Meyer



My best friend Brittaney and I on vacation together, likely discussing something too inappropriate to repeat.