the frog is boiling . . .
Today, the senate voted to amend our Constitution, to explicitly deny same-sex couples the right to marry each other.
Amazing. I thought the Constitution was about guaranteeing rights to Americans, not taking them away.
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention the last five years; the Republican majority in Congress clearly isn't interested in defending or respecting our Constitution.
Amazing. I thought the Constitution was about guaranteeing rights to Americans, not taking them away.
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention the last five years; the Republican majority in Congress clearly isn't interested in defending or respecting our Constitution.
posted by Wil Wheaton at 5:40 PM
7 Comments:
Good analogy. It is true that the current GOP's tactic to erode civil liberties is to gradually redefine the baseline. One of the chief ways they are doing this is by slowly promoting more power to the executive branch than is warranted by the constitution, and invoke the super magic password "national security." "Oh, well the President has the authorization to do that." Yeah, no - sorry, he really doesn't. I actually heard a Republican congressman say on the radio, "well, I feel confident that the President has authorization to carry out wire tapping in a time of wa-... in a time of national security." So the War Powers Act in now the National Security Powers Act. When exactly would a "time of national security" be over? Are we going to reach a point and say, "Good job! Now that we have achieved national security, I guess we can tear down all the fences and go home now." I guess it won't be long until same-sex marriage is a threat to national security. Maybe the rationale will be "TSA inspectors saw two dudes holding hands, and got so distracted that they let a Syrian national with an IED onto a Southwest flight to Albany."
It simply is not possible to take a "right" away if it was never a "right" in the first place.
I like where you're going (or coming from) Wayne and I agree with you to a point: the only sustainable resource a government has is people. People provide the "grist for the mill" as it were: they pay taxes, run the government, ARE the government, etc., etc. The only guaranteed source of that resource is the issue of reproduction between the male and female of the species. This is the reason government is involved in licensing marriages: to ensure it's own continued survival. It is also attempting to ensure the product of these unions are stable (read: tax payers, not criminals, drug users, etc.), something--backed by studies-- "more" possible in a heterosexual household.
Homosexuals, by definition, cannot reproduce so why should society "reward" that relationship by conferring it with "rights"? I'm being simplistic (some would say: simple) but that's the crux of the issue.
Fred,
So, if I hear what you are saying correctly, if I am a sterile man then I should have my marriage nullified? Your comments make me sad. I hope that your wife does not realize her limited role in your marriage.
Wayne,
Nicely said. I think we are in agreement with regards to the inappropriateness of such legislation, even though we differ in our moral view of the subject of the law.
I am interested to hear more about why you said "I do not believe that there is a "separation of church and state". I think you are referring to the reality that religion really is a driving force in legislation. But I am not sure if that is what you mean.
Now, I do want to clear up something. You mention, " I believe that God created the covenant of marriage between man and woman." That may be true, yet the institution of marriage is a wholly separate thing. After all, you can legally be married by a justice of the peace, and you can keep your license even if you are an athiest. I think that we are actually in agreement on this, but I just wanted to call it out again.
Great comments, Wayne. In regards to an earlier comment, yes, I agree that all political parties are at fault. The GOP is just the whipping boy du jour.
@leathej1: "... bad argument that stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of social rules. Consider this: You have to be sixteen years old to drive and eighteen years old to vote. The reason for the rule is that driving and voting require a certain level of maturity. True, some adults don't have such maturity, yet we don't exclude them. True, some minors could probably drive and vote effectively, but we don't let them. The point is that rules are general propositions based on a presumed connection between the established criteria and the behavior that is desired, even though the result may not always be favorable. And so it is with marriage."
(thanks, D'Souza)
Sorry - I am not understanding the connection. Can you explain this in your own words?
Wayne -
It took me a while to digest your last post, simply because it was not what I expected. It was well thought out, informative, and rational - not the kind of thing I see in a topic of this emotional charge.
This is one of those moments that happens all too seldom in a public forum. An actual exchange of ideas took place. Well, I learned something at least. And although my position has not changed, this discourse has helped me find better ways to communicate my position.
Wayne, a whole lot of people could learn a whole lot from you.
Post a Comment
<< Home