Dear Governor Walker,
I find myself baffled by the statement you released recently regarding your stance on the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. I'd like to share with you, if I may, my feelings on this subject.
So Scott, you start off your piece by berating the five Supreme Court justices for making a, "grave mistake" to "redefine the institution of marriage". Scotty, you'll be privy to know that marriage has been the subject of redefinition since it's creation millennia ago. When it was common place years and years ago for men to take multiple wives, buy wives from their fathers, and force their children into arranged marriages, it seems that marriage has changed its definition many times and yet you are only appalled by this recent expansion of the right to legal marriage since you don't like it.
Scott, you go on to discuss that, "we will need a conservative president who will appoint men and women to the Court who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our land without injecting their own political agendas", and instead inject YOUR own political agenda. It's no secret that you're planning to run for president and this bit was an embarrassingly desperate and ham-fisted move to pander to your staunch conservative constituents.
You continue to discuss that the ability to define marriage should lie with the states and not the Supreme Court. Here's another flaw with your logic; you just bashed the justices who, "redefined marriage" and now you're talking of allowing the states to run free and do it themselves. So which is it? Should no one be allowed to even conceive other definitions of marriage, or can everyone just do it for themselves? Consistency is key here Scotty, you're contradicting yourself.
Your next bit really makes me chuckle. So you decide to call out the justices for infringing upon all Americans rights to freedom of religion which he says, "provides broad protection to individuals and institutions to worship and act in accordance with their religious beliefs". So how exactly can giving same-sex couples the right to marry infringe on other people's expression of their religion? The law is not forcing other people to accept this with open arms and drop their given religions and become godless heathens as you may think. People can do whatever the hell they want! Last time I checked same-sex couples and LGBT groups didn't start running around and burning down churches and forcibly preventing your Americans from practice whichever religion they wish. This law may contradict certain religious beliefs, yes I get that, but its not forcing anything on anyone, people don't need to view this decision as acceptable anymore than people need to view the growing legalization of marijuana as acceptable, so stop whining and carry on with your life. Our Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of ALL Americans to practice whatever creed they align themselves with, not enforce the doctrines of a select few.
You close that paragraph by issuing a statement to, "all Wisconsinites concerned about the impact of today’s decision" that their freedoms would be protected and that, "the government will not coerce you to act against your religious beliefs." The government isn't even doing that now, no one is coercing anyone to do anything, no one is being forced to do anything, this decision is merely affording people in same-sex relationships the same benefits that any other legal marriage would receive. Scott, please, stop playing victim here, the Supreme Court isn't bringing back the rule of Nero and hunting down the Christians like animals, your religious views are still yours to practice as freely and as openly as you wish.
Scott, in your last section you reiterate your previous statements, and boy, do they not make a lick of sense. You go on to close with a line that I'm fairly certain caused my brain to shutdown for a few minutes, as I just couldn't process the sheer stupidity of it. "We will continue to fight for the freedoms of all Americans." ...Okay? It seems your interpretation of fighting for the rights of all Americans means fighting for the rights of the fraction that share your political ideologies and stripping newly allowed freedoms from those who don't.
Scotty, as a man who wants to run for president, you should know how big of a misstep this statement is for your political career. We don't need or want a president to fight for the rights of the few while excluding all others because they're different and don't quite fit with our religious and/or political beliefs, and before you even try tell me that is exactly what happened, I invite you to re-read my article.
Your's truly, very embarrassed of his state's leadership,
Someone who believes in the freedoms of ALL Americans.
