The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

I watched "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey," part 1 of a film trilogy by Peter Jackson, released in 2012, based on the book by J.R.R. Tolkien, "The Hobbit."

I rate this film overall as a good film worth watching.

I enjoyed the acting by Morgan Freeman, who played the main character, Bilbo Baggins in a thoughtful manner, and subtly when called for.  A host of actors joined in recreating roles they played earlier when Peter Jackson filmed the follow-up story, "The Lord of the Rings, in a previous film trilogy.  They included Ian McKellan (as Gandalf the Grey),  Andy Serkis (as Gollum), Kate Blanchett (as Galadriel), Hugo Weaving (as Elrond), Christopher Lee (as Saruman the White), Ian Holmes (as Old Bilbo Baggins), and Elijah Wood (as Frodo Baggins).  Having played these parts in three previous films, these actors honed their roles, and deliver wonderful performances.

The riddle game b/w Bilbo & Gollum

I most enjoyed the scene where Bilbo meets Gollum in a cave, and engages in game of riddle, which follows the book closely at this point.  They agree that if Bilbo wins, Gollum will show him the way out of the cave, but if Gollum wins, Bilbo will allow Gollum to eat him - a high stakes game.  Both Morgan Freeman, and especially, Andy Serekis (portraying Gollum in a CGI performance) deliver an outstanding portrayal of this scene.

However, I thought the film dragged at some points, which seemed a bit odd.  When Peter Jackson filmed the first film, "The Fellowship of the Ring," in "The Lord of the Ring" trilogy, over a decade ago, the film had great pacing.  In this first part of "The Hobbit" film trilogy, the pacing seemed off.  Great filmmakers have a good sense of pacing for a film.  It's somewhat disappointing to see a filmmaker who had a great sense of pacing begin to lose some of it over the years.  For example, the scenes at Bilbos' home with the dwarves seems to go too long.  The same goes for the scene with the battle of the stone giants in the Misty Mountains, as well as some other scenes.

It's telling that while the "Fellowship of the Ring garnered 13 Academy Award nominations, winning 4 Academy Awards, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey garnered 3 Academy Award nominations, with none winning an Academy Award.

Yet, overall, I enjoyed the film, and highly recommend it.

If you are interested in differences between the book and the film, see my post, The Hobbit (the films).
If you are interested in my review of the book, see my post, The Hobbit (the book).
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

Islam

Islam represents the 2nd largest religion in the world - with around 1.6 billion adherents worldwide (roughly 23% of the world's population), though many only follow a loose folk type version.  To many outsiders, they associate Islam with a radical Muslim version of it, though this represents a minority view.  Though many think of Muslims as living in the Middle East, only around 20% do so.  The rest largely live in Southern Asia or Africa.

In a religious context, the word Islam roughly means voluntary submission to God. Its monotheism roughly reflects both the Jewish and Christian faiths, though it holds a distinctive view.

Given the events since September 11, 2001, many tend to think of Islam as representing an open warfare against the West, against America, and especially against Christianity, as well as against the Jews.  I want to address these issues by answering some basic questions about this religion, using a format set forth by James Sire in the latest version of his book, "The Universe Next Door: A Worldview Catalog."

1. What do Muslims consider prime reality - the really real?  For Muslims, Allah (the Arabic word for God) represents the prime reality.  Allah is far above everything else, as well above any other views about God.  For most Muslims, Allah remains a distant figure.  They tend to be offended by any concept of having a close relationship with God (and especially calling God the Father - Abba - an Aramaic term for Father similar to Daddy) as repugnant which they usually reject as degrading God (a notable exception are Sufis, who call God a friend)
2. What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?
   For Muslims, God created the world out of nothing (which Jews and Christians agree with).  But for most Muslims, it's unclear if humans have free will, or are simply subject to the divine decrees of God.  In contrast, most Christian traditions emphasize the free will of mankind (though to varying degrees).
3. What is a human being?
   For Muslims, human beings stand as the pinnacle of God's creation, above the angels.  Thus, they must submit to God.  Muslims have no conception of original sin.  Instead, they believe all humans are born in a state of purity and innocence.  They only need redemption if they specifically disobey God's law (as set forth in the Quran and the Hadiths).
4. What happens to a person at death?
   For Muslims, everyone will be judged by their deeds.  They have no conception of God's grace - God might be merciful, but they have no guarantee of this, even for Muslims who receive commendations died very worried if they would reach paradise.  Three exceptions exist: (1) Children before puberty; (2) the mentally impaired; and (3) martyrs, including those engaged in a holy jihad.  Radical Muslims interpret the Quaran and Hadiths to mean those who kill Christians and Jews meet this exception.  (Most Muslims do not.)
5. How is it possible to know anything?
   Most Muslims believe rationality can distinguish truth from error, though they assert rationality needs help from revelation.  They believe humans have distorted the revelations God (Allah) delivered through many prophets, including Jesus.  For Muslims, Mohammed is the seal of the prophets, so the Quran is preserved free from error.  Those who do not recognize the truth of the Quran do so because God prevents them from doing so.
6. How do we know what is right from wrong?
   For Muslims, we can only know right from wrong from the Quran.  However, since the Quran can be ambiguous, we also should look to the Hadiths (a collection of actions and sayings of Mohammed).  However, many Hadiths exist, and Muslims do not agree which ones should be followed.  Therefore, while Muslims agree they must follow Sharia (the religious law), they adhere to different Sharias since they tend to follow various Hadiths.  They also acknowledge Christians and Jews follow their own sharia.  (But for radical Muslims, their interpretation of the Qumran and the Hadiths they follow means the eradication of Christians and Jews.)
7. What is the meaning of human history?
   For Muslims, human history is like a long final exam - we have to get it right to be accepted by Allah.  Part of this goal is to set up an Islamic community (an umma), a political community as well as a community of believers.  Most Muslims believe this can be achieved by peaceful means, though radical Muslims believe this can only be achieved through violent force.
8. What personal life-orientating core commitments are consistent with this worldview?
   Devout Muslims strive to follow the divine law, as they best understand it, for even the smallest parts of their lives.  While they do this out of gratitude, this gratitude does not derive from sins forgiven, or out of any notion of a close, personal relationship with God.

      The close personal relationship we as Christians believe we can have with Jesus Christ, with God the Son, through grace, likely presents a tension for Muslim believers, who tend to view their relationship with God as distant.  As Christians, we have a challenge to present the gospel to our Muslim friends in a manner they can grasp and understand.  It helps if we understand their worldview to begin with.

The Hobbit (the film trilogy)

Peter Jackson directed a film project to turn the book, The Hobbit, into a film.  (He also co-wrote and co-produced it.)  However, instead of one film, he turned it into 3 films:
1. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
2. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013), and
3. The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Many criticize Jackson for turning a relatively simple children's fairy tale into a monstrosity of 3 films.  In addition, many also criticize any deviations he made from a story they love.

However, films always deviate from book derivations.  So filmmakers call them film adaptations - they adapt the book to the medium of film, which has different demands and calls for artistic interpretation when adapted.  Faithful readers of the book almost always complain about deviations from the text of the book, especially beloved all-time best selling books.

Next, The Hobbit appears as a simple children's fairy tale (or fantasy), but it has a much more rich depth to it.  Tolkien began writing the back story for it, The Silmarillion, in 1914, in a grand plan to write a background mythology for England.  The Hobbit was a small part of that great story, which wasn't published till after Tolkien's death in 1973.  (His son finally published it in 1977.)  Many who read The Hobbit have not read The Silmarillion.  Jackson incorporated aspects of The Silmarillion into the films.

Also, years after The Hobbit, Tolkien wrote the follow-up book, The Lord of the Rings, which became so long, he divided it into three books.  Originally, Tolkien wanted to finish The Silmarillion as the follow-up book, but his publisher insisted on more about hobbits.  Tolkien incorporated much of The Silmarillion into The Lord of the Rings.  In addition, he added lengthy appendices to the last book of the The Lord of the Rings, which helps to explain why it took over a decade between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins

Jackson (and his team) wanted to incorporate this great story background into the much smaller story of The Hobbit.  I applaud this attempt, which was largely successful.

However, since Jackson previously directed the three films which follow the three books of The Lord of the Rings, he also wanted to use The Hobbit films as a sort of prequel to those films.  I think he made a mistake by taking this effort further than he needed to in order to set it up as a good prequel.

You can follow the links above to see my thoughts on each of the films of The Hobbit.

The Lewis-Tolkien Friendship

The Hobbit (book)

In a way, John Ronald Reul (J.R.R.) Tolkien began writing The Hobbit, or There and Back Again in 1914, when he began writing stories which eventually became The Silmarillon (published by his son in 1977, following Tolkien's death in 1973).  Tolkien, who had a keen interest in mythology, originally wanted to develop a mythology to help explain the origins of English history and culture.  In these stories, Tolkien created an entire mythological world, which included Middle Earth (the world humans inhabited).

Specifically, Tolkien began writing The Hobbit in the early 1930s when he suddenly felt inspired to write on a blank piece of paper, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit."  However, the fictional hobbit had an entire mythological universe to live within because of the stories Tolkien had already been writing for years.  Tolkien completed writing it in 1932, but only distributed it to friends, so it took until 1937 for a friend to get a copy to a publisher, who published it to great critical and public acclaim.

In addition, as I wrote about in a previous post, Tolkien met C. S. Lewis in 1926, and they embarked on a mission to revive fairy tales as a serious literary device.  The Hobbit represented the first effort along these lines essentially as a children's fairy tale.

Tolkien, an excellent scholar of English philology (the study of language), especially of Germanic and Nordic origins, borrowed from much Germanic and Nordic mythology in constructing his mythology reflected in The Silmarillon and The Hobbit.   So, for example, the hero, Bilbo Baggins, eventually confronts a dragon, Beowulf scholarly, much as the hero Beowulf does in the old epic English poem.  (Tolkien was a well-known Beowulf scholar.)  However, while the Beowulf hero portrays a large, muscular, and powerful superhero, subject to moral flaws, who seeks glory in conquest, Bilbo Baggins portrays a small weak figure, though courageous, who prefers his comfortable home to adventure, prefers harmony to riches, and who takes up adventure to help others, rather than for self promotion, though he grows as a character by undertaking adventure.  Thus while Tolkien borrows from Germanic and Nordic myths, he infuses them with a different morality and ethical basis informed by his Catholic upbringing, which reanimates them.  (In fact, Tolkien gave a groundbreaking lecture on Beowulf around 1936 which changed the whole view on this.)

I highly recommend reading The Hobbit, which you will enjoy.

You may want to read my post about the film trilogy by Peter Jackson, based upon this book, "The Hobbit (the films)."

The Lewis-Tolkien Friendship

The Twilight Zone

I enjoy on Netflix you can watch old TV shows, sometimes every episode.  I really enjoy watching The Twilight Show (just called Twilight Show in seasons 4 & 5).  It ran on TV for five seasons, between 1959 to 1964.  Most people saw it later in reruns (syndication).

For some reason, I didn't enjoy it that much growing up - I tended to simply see it as a creepy show, so I didn't watch it much.  However, I enjoy it much more now, especially since I now understand how good the writing behind it stood up.  I also found out it's usually classified as a science-fiction show.

In 2013, the Writer's Guild of America ranked it as the 3rd best written TV show of all time.  TV Guide ranked it as the 5th greatest show of all time.

Rod Serling

Rod Serling created the series, served as executive producer, and carried most of the writing. He wrote, or co-wrote, 92 of the show's 156 episodes (more than half). This WWII veteran used the GI bill and disability payments to fund college where he focused on theater, then broadcasting, and finally majoring in Literature. He later wrote for radio and television shows, but felt frustrated the sponsors could censor his work.  He started The Twilight Zone since the sponsors had less say over a science fiction show.

The show earned rave reviews among critics, some who rated it as the best television show running.  However, the show mostly struggled to find a viewing audience, just barely staying alive during it's first 3 seasons.  The network finally cancelled it after the 3rd season.  They replaced it with Fair Exchange, an hour long program.  However, they cancelled that show after half a season, and asked Twilight Zone to return, but as an hour long program in Season 4.  Serling hated this format since he considered Twilight Zone the perfect half hour show.

In Season 5, Twilight Zone finally returned to a half hour format.  However, it had a new producer who made some bad decisions.  It lost some writers, so Serling had to write more, which wore him out.  The network decided to cancel and Serling sold out his interest (he thus lost out on syndication sales).

Unfortunately, Serling died in 1975, at age 50, of a heart attack while undergoing open heart surgery to address an recent earlier heart attack he suffered.

Though he had a large legacy, he will likely best be known for the intense work he put into creating and writing The Twilight Zone.

How We Got to Now

I recently finished reading a book I highly recommend, How We Got To Now: Six Innovations That Made the Modern World (2014), by Steven Johnson.  In it, he talks about modern innovations, almost miraculous, we tend to take for granted, which play a significant role in the modern world we live in.  He focuses on six such innovations, which I will try to summarize:

• Glass - clear glass did not appear until the 14th Century (it was always colored and opaque before that).  Soon after came the printing press, which called for spectacles so many with eyesight problems could read.  People playing around with spectacles led to the development of both the telescope and the microscope, which led to major breakthroughs in science.  Later, some who placed specially treated paper behind a lens developed photography, and later film.  Television developed as some coated the glass with phosphor and shot electrons at it.  Others later used glass to develop fiberglass - widely used as a material to make lightweight objects. Later, others found glass fibers
  
  could transmit light frequencies at multiple frequencies and with negligible loss of signal.  Today, fiber optic communications help to bind our world in a sort of global village.  When glass makers found coating the back of glass with a mixture of tin and mercury created mirrors, it changed all our lives.  We could suddenly see ourselves clearly.  Painters used it to understand how to paint a 3 dimensional world on a 2 dimensional canvass by looking at what they wanted to paint in a mirror.  Modern large telescopes extensively use mirrors to focus a large image into something we can see, so we can look back in time since light from a distance takes so long to reach us.
• Cold - until the 19th Century, most produce and meats didn't keep long in the summer heat. Frederic Tudor went into bankruptcy before figuring out how to transport and preserve New England ice in
  
  warmer climates.  Once he did, he made a fortune, and meat and produce could be transported much further, vastly improving diets.  Sometime later, Dr. John Corrie found that cooling compressed air with cooled water pulled heat from its surrounding which cooled the air - and he could make artificial ice.  But soon others used this innovation to first cool offices and factories, and then homes (as well as the home refrigerator).  Soon, many moved to the Sun belt cooled by air conditioning, which radically changed the political map.  Dr. Birdseye, studying the natural effect flash freezing fishes caught by the Inuit Eskimos, soon transformed the entire frozen food market employing flash freezing.  The summer blockbusters became possible with the advent of air-conditioned movie theaters.
• Sound - a stenographer thought up the first system of recording sound.  However, it did not occur to him to create a playback system.  Alexander Bell devised a system of capturing sound, transmitting it electronically, with instantaneous playback at the other end - the telephone - which largely caught on
  
  as it became more affordable.  It took Thomas Edison, building on the work of others, to devise a system to capture sound, and make it capable of playback at any time later.  Later, Marconi developed a wireless system for sending Morse code, which developed into radio.  Radio helped to expose jazz, largely a form of music developed by black musicians for largely black audiences, into a form of music widely accepted in the culture of the 20s, since the audience usually couldn't see the color of the musician on the other end.  Amplification of signals, developed at Bell Labs, not only helped radio, it made large scale events, such as the March on Washington, possible with the amplification of the speaker.  A later development of the digitization of sound allows us to preserve a perfect reproduction of the original sound, which often deteriorates over time in other mediums.
• Clean - for most of human history, taking a drink of water involved a roll of the dice, especially in crowded cities.  Though some European cities had sewers, they often flowed into the source of drinking water, creating the vast waves of diseases they experienced.  Chicago experienced this.  They hired an engineer, Ellis Chesbrough, who faced a problem.  Chicago had a flat landscape, so building a sewer system under it would flow nowhere.  He found an innovative solution - he raised the city, about 10 feet on average, building by building, and at times block by block, using an army of jackscrews and men twisting them to raise them, and then immediately insert sewer lines under them, connected to main lines running down the center of the street (which he filled).  It was the first comprehensive sewer system in any American city.  Other cities soon followed.  However, though this
  
  development helped, by itself, it did not lead to the clean water we rely on.  John Leal, building on insights from bacteria developments under the microscope, found that using the right level of chlorine in water destroyed enough deadly bacteria in water to make drinking water safe.  Many American cities soon adopted this development, which dramatically dropped the disease rate, especially among children.  As a result, many American cities developed public swimming pools with clean waters.  Chlorine soon led to the development of Clorox, which revolutionized cleanliness in consumer homes.  Oddly, our entire computerized world depends on cleanliness - since microchips cannot be produced without the extreme sterility found in the clean rooms where manufactures produce them.
• Time - For most of human history, exact time did not matter.  However, once sailors undertook long voyages on open seas, it became critical.  To determine longitude (east vs. west), you needed to know your exact time (which you could tell from the sun) and compare it to the time from the port you left from (which required a precise clock).  Both Spain and England offered vast sums to anyone who developed a clock which could keep an accurate time of the home port clock, since most clocks of
  
  that time lost significant amounts of time.  Galileo developed a concept keeping time based on the pendulums, based on his observations of swinging alter lamps.  However, it took many others to perfect this concept into a working clock worked out a way to keep an accurate measure of the home port clock.  An accurate clock soon became central to the industrial revolution.  The development of trains soon showed the inferiority of local time, and William F. Allen led the effort to adopt the 4 standardized time zones in American, which led to international time zones around the world.  In our world, time has been redefined by atomic clocks, which provides the basis for how many of us find our way through GPS.
• Light - Many of us think Thomas Edison invented the light bulb.  We don't tend to know that someone else invented it at least 40 years before he did, and many slowly improved upon it.  Edison did not invent the light bulb, but his team worked hard to improve it to the point where it became practical. He
  
  bought the existing patents, and then hired a talented diversified team who used their interdisciplinary efforts to work out in an extended disciplinary method the problems the existing light bulb presented.  He also choose to award the best in his team with stock in his company to incentive them.  His innovations led to the modern research teams which incentives with stock options, which generated many of our technological innovations.  Over time, light developed into flash photography, neon lights, laser, bar-code scanners, and, recently, the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livormore Labs in California which seeks to use many multiple laser beams focused through multiple mirrors to duplicate the atomic process in the sun to fuse hydrogen atoms together.

Johnson likes to speak of the Hummingbird effect - about how innovations in one area lead to innovations in other areas or fields - often unforeseen by the innovator of the original invention.  He also likes to talk about how innovations do not seem to occur as a result on of the efforts of one individual, but instead seems to build upon small contributions by many individuals until finally one, or more individuals, experiences a breakthrough, which then tends to generate all kinds of other unforeseen positive developments.

PBS made this book into a television series, which I watched, borrowing a copy from my local library.  I also highly recommend watching this television show if you can.  While I didn't necessarily agree with all the views he expressed - still I thought he conveyed enough interesting views which I agreed with, that I highly recommend reading the book and watching the series.  He has a way of uniting various disciplines which few others do when studying the same subjects.  I got a lot out of both watching the video (which I did first) and then reading the book.

Things That Matter

I finished reading "Thing That Matter" (2013), a New York Times bestseller (4 weeks at #1) by Charles Krauthammer, a longstanding standing columnist for the Washington Post - syndicated nationally (to 400 newspapers worldwide).  This psychiatrist gave up his medical profession (though he remains licensed) long ago to pursue, at the urgings of others, a career of writing, especially of essays and columns, largely on political matter, but covering other matters.

More impressive, while in his first year at Harvard Medical School, he suffered a diving board accident which left him paralyzed for life (he remains wheel-chair bound to this day).  Instead of giving up, he pressed on and not only graduated, but eventually became chief resident in psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, among achieving other notable success in psychiatry before turning his attention to writing.

"Things That Matter" reflects a collection of 30 years of columns and essays by Dr. Krauthammer, selected by him - with some slight self-editing (he says renamed many of the titles, since he usually had no say on the titles of his columns when published - usually selected by the editor of the publication where they were published).

Anyway, I highly recommend reading this book.  His insights over 30 or so years are magnificent.

When I Say I Am A Christian

In many sites on the internet, you will find a poem entitled, "When I Say I Am A Christian," usually attributed to the multi-talented author and poet,

Maya Angelou at
Bill Clinton Inauguration

Maya Angelou (who recently passed away on May 28, 2014).  It goes as follows:

When I say ... "I am a Christian"

I'm not shouting "I'm clean livin'."

I'm whispering "I was lost,

Now I'm found and forgiven."

When I say ... "I am a Christian"

I don't speak of this with pride.

I'm confessing that I stumble

and need Christ to be my guide.

When I say ... "I am a Christian"

I'm not trying to be strong.

I'm professing that I'm weak

And need His strength to carry on.

When I say ... "I am a Christian"

I'm not bragging of success.

I'm admitting I have failed

And need God to clean my mess.

When I say ... "I am a Christian"

I'm not claiming to be perfect,

My flaws are far too visible

But, God believes I am worth it.

When I say ... "I am a Christian"

I still feel the sting of pain.

I have my share of heartaches

So I call upon His name.

When I say ... "I am a Christian"

I'm not holier than thou,

I'm just a simple sinner

Who received God's good grace, somehow

However, it appears that Maya Angelo never wrote this poem - instead, she actually disowned it through her agents.  Before her death, the agents who booked her lectures, Lordly & Dame, Inc., posted the following statement on their website,

Please be aware that Dr. Maya Angelou has absolutely no affiliation with the "poems" entitled Clothes or I Am A Christian that are circulating the Internet.

The Epoch Times, an international newspaper which has won awards for human rights reports, confirmed this in a story entitled, "'I Am A Christian' Poem Not Written by Maya Angelou."  (May 28, 2014)
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/700549-i-am-a-christian-poem-not-written-by-maya-angelou/

Carol S. Wimmer

Instead, it seems the poem was originally written by Carol Wimmer in 1988, and first published in "Hi-Call Gospel Magazine" (an Assembly of God publication) in 1992.  The original version, very similar to the later modified version, reads as follows:

When I say, "I am a Christian"

I'm not shouting, "I am saved!"

I'm whispering, "I get lost!

That's why I chose this way"

When I say, "I am a Christian"

I don't speak with human pride

I'm confessing that I stumble—

needing God to be my guide

When I say, "I am a Christian"

I'm not trying to be strong

I'm professing that I'm weak

and pray for strength to carry on

When I say, "I am a Christian"

I'm not bragging of success

I'm admitting that I've failed

and cannot ever pay the debt

When I say, "I am a Christian"

I don't think I know it all

I submit to my confusion

asking humbly to be taught

When I say, "I am a Christian"

I'm not claiming to be perfect

My flaws are all too visible

but God believes I'm worth it

When I say, "I am a Christian"

I still feel the sting of pain

I have my share of heartache,

which is why I seek His name

When I say, "I am a Christian"

I do not wish to judge

I have no authority...I only know I'm loved

Apparently, it seems that an anonymous person took the original version, and modified it somewhat.  Then, apparently, for some unknown reason, it seems that person decided to attribute it to Maya Angelou, and then published it on the internet.  (It's not the first time a writing has been attributed to someone famous - the Prayer of St. Francis being the best example - something I may write about in the future.)

In any event, both versions reflect a humble version of following Christ, and are exemplary.    I simply hope to help to set the record straight on this.  The writings speaks on their own.

Obergefell v Hodges

United States Supreme Court

In Obergefell v Hodges (June 26, 2015), five unelected and unaccountable lawyers on the U.S. Supreme Court decided (in a deeply divided 5-4 decision) that both the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, as well as its equal protection clause, required all states of the United States, to redefine marriage to include marriage between the same sex, despite that the people of over 30 states voted, through open ballot, or through their legislatures, to clarify that their constitutions retained the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

In an ironic twist, the people, through an open and democratic process, had reached the conclusion (granting state recognition of same sex marriage), on a state by state basis in at least 11 states as popular opinion for this position significantly shifted.  The Supreme Court short-circuited this process, and thereby took this decision out of the hands of the people - the democratic process.  Instead, in an imperious manner, they decided they knew better than the people, and, lacking patience for the democratic process, declared the Constitution imposed a new right hitherto unknown by anyone, much less supported by prior Court decisions (basic requirements for finding rights deserving protection under the short, brief, and broad language of the 14th Amendment).

Constitutional Balance of Powers
 both b/w the States and Federal Govt.s
as well as between the three branches of government

Under our Constitutional system of government, the legislature makes laws, the executive executes laws, and the judiciary interprets laws, a system which balances governmental powers.   For this reason, the federal judiciary is not subject to elections - justices appointed there enjoy a life-long term - since, at least theoretically, they mostly do not engage in policy making, at least not in the same manner as the Legislative branch does.  The Court violated this basic and fundamental constitutional structure when they basically, and mostly, engaged in a form of legislative policy making best left, under our Constitutional system, to the legislature - and especially under our federalism form of government, which leaves most legislative powers to the states, except those powers the states enumerated and entrusted to the federal government in the Constitution.

So, apart from whether you agree or disagree with same sex marriage recognized by this decision - hopefully you find it disturbing when the Supreme Court disregards the constitutional separation of powers by redefining marriage in the manner of a sort of super-legislature.  If not, consider whether you would be happy with a Supreme Court which imposes its raw will over the will of the people, apart from both any clear language in the Constitution, as well as apart from any longstanding right, to disavow laws passed by your state legislature (or by popular ballot) which you strongly support.

As one dissenting justice noted, this decision poses a danger to democracy.  It goes far beyond an interpretation of law, something our constitutional form of government allows, into the realm where the Supreme Court can simply make whatever laws suits their sense of what is right at the particular moment - which devolves our nation from a nation of laws to a nation of five lawyers with the absolute power to make whatever laws they deem appropriate, regardless of what the people express their will through legitimate forms.  Such a form of government more resembles the philosopher kings of Plato's Republic than a democracy which many of our citizen-soldiers valiantly fought for, and willingly sacrificed their lives to defend.