Score another one for Senator Snowball, except this time, amazingly enough, James Inhofe (R-OK) is not complaining about the arrogance of people to think they can change his god’s climate with pollution. No, he’s (predictably) upset with the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality, and he claims he’s got backup, too.
Wait, what? Well, apparently, Inhofe’s gay friends are also all upset with the ruling. According to Gay Star News, Inhofe said:
I thought they would rule the way they did. I know a lot of people, actually a lot of people who are friends of mine in the gay community, who also think it was a bad decision.
He doesn’t name any of them, either. On the one hand, we could respect the possibility that he’s not naming names because he doesn’t have permission from those friends to drop their names, and so he’s protecting and respecting their privacy. On the other hand, this seems to be an increasingly common thing for the religious right to say in order to demonstrate that even the LGBTQ community thinks marriage equality is A Bad Thing™ for society.
Inhofe also released a statement that said:
My position on this issue is clear and has not changed. It is unfortunate that the Court took it upon itself to decide for the people what was being appropriately debated and decided in the states through the democratic process.
Here’s the thing: Too many of these idiots are saying democracy means the majority gets to determine what rights they want to share with the minority. In this case, it’s straight people deciding whether they want to share the right to marry with gay people. Furthermore, we have numerous cases where marriage was said to be a fundamental right of all individuals:
- Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
- Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
- Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right,” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
There are more, too. Granted, not all of these cases are specifically marriage cases, however, they do show that the Supreme Court has a long history of saying that marriage is a fundamental right. Why, then, do morons like Inhofe, and others on the religious right, keep saying that the rights of the LGBTQ community should be subject to the democratic process, when the right of straight people to marry never was?
This idea that people, whose lives are not profoundly (or even remotely) affected by this, can decide who gets to enjoy certain rights through popular vote and opinion is ridiculous on its face. This isn’t what the United States was supposed to be, and yet, we keep doing it. We maintain oppressive structures for the sole purpose of perpetuating oppression, and throw a livid fit, with pseudo-intellectual arguments, when we’re told we can’t oppress people anymore.
It’d be interesting to see just how many of Inhofe’s gay friends actually do agree with him; that is, if he’s actually got friends who are openly gay. Knowing his anti-LGBTQ attitudes, many of them may actually be in the closet around him.
Featured image by U.S. Embassy Kyiv Ukraine. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons