Bush Screws Gay People
Bush will support a constitutional amendment, designed to permanently enshrine discrimination against gay people into the constitution. Why? It's classic "look over there, not over here" politics. It's disgusting.
If there's ever been a time where state's rights are important, this is it.
Polling consistently shows that younger people have much more tolerance for gay people. In fact, even among young and relatively religious people, there's a who-cares attitude towards gay marriage. Why is this? It's simple.
News for you old people who are screwing up our country: There aren't that many gay people. We'd prefer to just live them alone.
Who gets to live with your stupid constitutional amendment? We do. And our children. You don't have relevance for much longer. Why the hell are you pushing your prejudices on the next generation?
The list of bullshit the greediest generation is forcing on everyone else just gets longer and longer.
on
| § 8
§ 8 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Ross, that's exactly right.
Ross, that's exactly right. Opponents of gay marriage are cunning: they are trying to short-circuit the usual process by which attitudes toward certain behaviors become relaxed with each succeeding generation by putting the question out of reach of those future generations.
Although I know quite a few Evangelical Christian young people who would agree with that plan, so I'm not sure this is a totally sound analysis. We can't blame old people for [em]everything[/em], you know. Only most things.
I am conflicted on the gay
I am conflicted on the gay marriage issue. I might as well be Johno the way I try to sit on the exact middle of the fence rail. But a constitutional amendment is wrong, because of the reasons that Ross and Johno have both mentioned, but also this: it will polarize the debate beyond all possibility of reasoned debate. It will have the same effect as Roe v. Wade; and turn gay rights from a slow process of acceptance into something fully as virulent as the abortion debate.
Whatever I think of the goodness or badness of Gay marriage, this is bad public policy. Using the constitution as a blunt instrument in the culture wars is not a wise decision.
(In their defense, the legislative activities of the courts have forced many to think that they have no other recourse.)
Buckethead, that is the point
Buckethead, that is the point of the courts in many ways. We've got three branches of power and I'm glad that one of them has decided that social justice and overall good of the country is their mandate. Without it, we wouldn't have things like desegregated schools and free speech. I don't like being under the thumb of old retired people who have no idea where the world is going without them. They don't give a shit about education because the stopped giving a damn about their grandkids and what they learn in school. Instead they want drug benefits over education (no child left behind, yet ANOTHER unfunded mandate). ack. I'm ranting.
The point of the courts (in
The point of the courts (in my estimation) is a negative one rather than a positive one. They exist (the higher courts) to restrain the exuberance of the executive and the legislative branch. They can say, "Hey, crazy guy! That's unconstitutional!" And then we all take a step back and try again. The founding fathers set the entire system up on this principle of limits and negative feedback.
The courts are not there to make new law. That is the job of the legislature. New law should be the province of the elected representatives of the people, who are subject to rebuke come the next voting season. The courts should, properly, only rule on whether the laws Congress passes are within the bounds of the constitution.
Brown v. Board of Education was like that - they ruled that something violated the 14th Amendment. Fine - it negated a bad law, and that was for the good. But that does not mean that desegregation would not have happened anyway. A concern for social justice does not require that we have one branch of government greatly exceed its role. Their mandate is spelled out in the consitution.
But Buckethead, the Mass.
But Buckethead, the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court is right--- that state's Constitution says what they say it does.
Idaho's may not. Utah's won't for sure. Ohio's better not, or there'll be some comedy. But don't conflate judicial activism with judicial reading-whats-in-front-of-them-ism.
On the other hand (see! I can
On the other hand (see! I can waffle!) I'm totally with you that making gay marriage a constitutional issue will result in a bitter, divisive crusade that the country needs like we need a new season of The Simple Life.
Sorry, I left my pocket copy
Sorry, I left my pocket copy of the Massachusetts constitution at home. It smelled like judicial activism, though I can get my head around the idea that it might not be.
News for you old people who
News for you old people who are screwing up our country: There aren't that many gay people.
But Ross, if we allow gays to marry, otherwise straight people will marry someone of the same gender instead because . . . well, because! We;ll have new gays created out of whole cloth! I haven't made the actual connections yet, but I know it has something to do with the Homosexual Agenda! (2:00 pm, Teleconference. 3:30, Convert straights.)