| A strange loop.
| |
| A strange loop.
| |
Why I'm Not Republican - or a DemocratMost people just assume I am a Republican. They are wrong. Here is an example of why: the Republicans are once again proposing to ban gay marriage - by Constitutional amendment. (hat tip: Michael Totten)
There are three problems with this:
The fundamental, most basic and deepest underpinning of America is simply this: all citizens are equal before the law. This is the key feature that enables "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to have meaning; for how is life protected, when it can be arbitrarily taken away? What does liberty mean when it is contingent on your behavior fitting certain norms defined by others? How can one even attempt to find their own path to happiness, when they can be arbitrarily deprived of whatever would make them happy?
Without the equal protection of the law, no other right can last very long - not even the most basic and self-evident truths hold, when the government gets to define who is able to enjoy these rights, and who is not, based not on their individual actions, but on some professed belief or membership in some group. This was the singular blemish on the Constitution in the first place: certain groups (Negros and Indians) were defined as unprotected by the law, because of their racial grouping. We fought a war, and slaughtered thousands of our fellow citizens, to get rid of that blemish.
Now we are attempting to add that blemish back in, by Constitutional amendment and Supreme Court decree: it's OK for the government to judge on the basis of race, or on the basis of choice of life partner. Bullshit! It is not OK; it is patently un-American.
Let me be clear. If a person wants not to have a gay person in their house, they are entitled to exclude them. If a private college wants to allow only white students, they are entitled to do so. If the Congressional Republicans want to pass a Constitutional amendment saying that gays cannot choose their life partner, the Congressional Republicans can take a flying leap (as well as a refresher course in equal protection). If the Supreme Court wants to declare that some races are more equal than other, it can also take a flying leap (and the same refresher course).
And isn't it interesting that these two issues came up so close together? Because the would-be dictators on the Right and the would-be dictators on the Left each find equal-protection religion when it comes to the other side's issue. I'm sure that the Republicans were outraged that the Supreme Court even considered breaching the sacred equal protection to give special rights to some groups over others, while the Democrats are equally outraged that the Republicans would consider breaching the sacred equal protection to some groups over others. The only difference between them is that they back different groups.
A pox on both of their sanctimonious and hypocritical houses.
Posted by Jeff at August 1, 2003 12:19 PM | Link CosmosWhat business does the Federal government have determining what constitutes a marriage?
*I* would answer with another question: what business does the Federal government, i.e. the US Supreme Court in this case, have in overriding a state's right to determine what laws are best suited for its constituency? The same people who were outraged that the USSC enacted its proper role in the 2000 election fiasco are the same people who are cheering a group of Activist Judges who blatantly and willfully shove aside at least two of the first ten Amendments which define the proper role of federal government, not the least of which is to allow the states to determine their laws and eliminate the ones that are no longer applicable. There was nothing in the Lawrence vs Texas ruling that had any bearing on national law.
Presuming the Federal government had some power over the definition of marriage, why on Earth do they want to put something that minor and piddling in the Constitution?
If the Activists SC Judges had interpreted their roles correctly and stayed out of the state's right to enforce its own laws, we wouldn't HAVE to have this discussion. As it is, the issue has been deliberately shoved in our faces, so now the only response a voting public has to counteract the essentially untouchable nature of the USSC is to enact an Amendment that spells out the will of the people. Nine against 250 million is NOT a "democracy" no matter how much the lefties try to skew it.
How much damage is done to the fabric of the nation by undermining equal treatment under the law?
I think I answered that one in my first response. The damage was done when seven out fo those nine judges determined that they knew better than the state of Texas as to what kind of law should be enforced. This happened with the abortion issue. It is not surprising that it has happened again.
I just wonder if you're totally in line with the rest of the Republican party if this is the one issue that you seem to be at odds with.
I don't believe that there are any truly thinking people who would agree 100% with all the issues on their party's platform. They simply choose to side with the party that most closely matches their ideals, or they choose to be an independent.
Posted by: Don Pieper on January 25, 2004 07:55 PMI am at odds with the Republican Party on a number of issues, of which this is just one.
I can buy the comment about finding the party which most closely matches one's ideals, with a caveat: I would chose to side with a party which mostly matches my ideals, so long as the Party's views don't conflict with fundamental political beliefs on any issue.
While the Democrats fail on national security grounds (as do the Libertarians), both major parties fail on their respect for individual Liberty and for the fiscal irresponsibility. These are vast issues, and not likely to be solved in the current political climate.
