Your Opinion: Views on same-sex marriage, selection of judges

Dear Editor:

I am responding to Dewey Thompson's July 24 letter that criticized my July 15 letter "Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage." Thompson's unenlightened rebuttal reflects his education and pedigree. I found his entire diatribe very offensive and heavily skewed.

The premise of my argument is to prove that Christianity, Islam and Judaism believe that marriage is between a man and woman and not substantiate polygamy.

The existence of gay marriage could contradict religious doctrine and the First Amendment right of the separation of church and state. Still, there's an active debate about the government limiting freedom of religion by forbidding certain religious practices of Christian owned-bakeries vs the public accommodations law. Unbeknownst to most Americans the government is setting moral standards meaning and interpretation of the Constitution has changed. It rests on party lines and not on our beliefs and values. The legal basis of marriage is the government. A church could be required by law to marry same-sex couples. Thompson assumes incorrectly that I believe marriage partners of the same sex denies the free exercise of religion to others.

The Constitution sets no qualifications for Supreme Court judges but states that they shall be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. However most congressmen ignore nominees' qualifications and opt for bribes, kickbacks and confirms a ringer who represents the ideology of the party of the sitting president.

I am of the opinion that the method of selecting U.S. Supreme Court justices should be significantly changed. I believe the justices should be voted into office by the public with a six-year term. Program a super computer with the total of all the judges in America with their qualifications and voting history and interpret the data and allow a national lottery to choose the best nominees from the program and allow the local communities and states decide by the vote of the people based on community standards and social norms than the president's ideology.

The Supreme Court of the United States has the final authority in interpreting the Constitution. It can set aside any law - federal, state or local - that conflicts with its definition of marriage.

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government." Washington - Farewell Address, 1796.