Well, I think it’s high time I weighed in on one of the right’s favorite boogeyman of late: the evil, activist judge. Yes, that’s right folks. We all know how rotten our judges are….following the letter of the law and all. And we know that they’s a comin’ to git us!! You know the type. They actually (gasp) believe in separation of church and state and a little word called individual freedom. Remember freedom?
Tom DeLay, House Majority Leader, held a news conference yesterday entitled the Judicial War On Faith. In his news conference he called for Congress to impeach judges because they are “ignoring the legitimate will of the people” when it comes to such issues as abortion and school prayer. He also faults judges in Florida for the whole Terry Schiavo travesty.
Perhaps I am a bit confused here but isn’t Roe V Wade the law of the land? And here is a question I have never been able to understand: why does my child have to pray at school when she prays at church? School is for education of the mind. Church is for education of the soul. It is vital that the two stay separate. Too many people have a wide variety of religious beliefs. If you allowed school prayer, by the end of the day you will have worshipped in 80 different religions and not learned that 5 x 2 = 10.
Sorry, Tommy, but the way I see it you are just trying to distract folks once again from your own financial wrongdoings. Trying to appear as if you are on the moral high ground when in reality you are actually stealing money (see: Commandments, Ten, number 7.), is not going to work, bud.
The way I see it is that you have two types of judges: elected and appointed. If you don’t like the elected ones, too bad. Vote against them in the next election. If you don’t like the appointed ones, blame Congress and vote against them in the next election. They are the ones who confirm judges.
I think it is hilarious that the right is griping about judges. Most folks, if they met an actual federal judge, would probably be so intimidated by how intelligent and thoughtful these people are, they would need to change their shorts. Federal judges know the law backwards and forwards. These are not people who look like Rob Zombie and are handing out gay porn indoctrination videos. These are people who have studied for years (that’s reading books, folks) and make decisions based on precedent.
I am not gay. I have no interest myself in gay marriage. But why do I care whether or not other people do? I am not an evangelical Christian. I have no interest in becoming one. If other people want to, that’s fine by me. It’s called freedom, folks, to live your life the way you see fit as long as you don’t harm anyone. How does gay people getting married harm anyone? It might offend people but, hey, I get offended by people who move their mouths when they read. There isn’t anything I can do about that.
Evangelicals like Tom DeLay need to wake up and realize that not everyone is going to want to live their lives like he (supposedly) does. Since when do the “less-government” Republicans care so much about what I do with my life?
Funny, if I started a ban for gay marriage and then one for evangelism, which one do you think I would get the most death threats from? Ironic, huh?
5 comments:
I do remember freedom. I think fondly back to the days when I could apply for and be duly considered for jobs for which I was qualified, and receive fair compensation for doing my work. It was pretty sweet when I was able to travel freely between states and do commerce with whomever I chose. Being able to vote for whomever I wanted is a luxury I'll miss, I don't mind telling you. And now that there are soldiers staying in our home, granted we now have somebody to entertain on a nightly basis. But we really the days when we could leave our home and partake of any activity or freely patronize any establishment we so chose.
Fortunately, the one freedom I haven't lost is the freedom to go into any foreign country I choose and be nothing but a drain on their society, while at the same time being critical of the very society giving me handouts. Man, when I decide to cash in that chip and get out of this cesspool of corruption I'll be living the high life! And I'll just be laughing at you punks back here in nazi germany.
Oh, silly me. The other freedom I haven't lost is the freedom to involuntarily cough-up 20% of my income.
Wait, I also still have the freedom to struggle to understand Jose as he asks "Quieres pantatas fritas con esto?"
Come to think of it, I also have the freedom to quit my job, sit on my ass, watch tv, and wait for everybody else to take care of me.
You know what....the more I think about it, the more I think that you might be wrong with your contention that we are losing freedoms. As long as Pedro is around to take care of me after I have a heart attack from eating too many of his freedom fries, there's nothing else I need.
In response to one particular piece....how gay marriage harms anybody. I think the answer is quite simple, for those capable of looking beyond the bible - it's harmful because it sets a dangerous precedent. Not dangerous with respect to what those "dirty homosexuals" are doing to the country, but dangerous with respect to this country not being ready to change paradigms so quickly. If it's OK for gays to marry, why not cousins? Or siblings? Or mother and son? Or farmer Joe and his cow Bessie? As long as the love is there, how are any of those relationships any less worthy?
A judges job is to interpret the law not create law. Individual freedom? You mean my freedom to smoke a legal product in a bar in downtown Minneapolis? Oh wait, I don’t have that freedom, not due to the will of the people, just the will of 1 judge….and I’m a non-smoker.
Roe v. Wade is a court precedent, it was never voted on by our elected representatives and it was done before the invention of technologies such as ultrasounds and the like. Now as we all know Roe v Wade declares that a fetus is not a life, rather a possession of the mother and she has a right to do what she wants with her body, nature notwithstanding. When we have reduced human life as a possession of someone then somehow magically create caretaker status upon Mom and Dad once it emerges from the womb just amazes me but that seems to be the consensus right now. For the record, I’m pro-choice but I think reasonable people don’t mind some restrictions like parental notification if a 14 year old wants to get an abortion.
Who is forcing your child to pray at school? I see nothing wrong with giving kids an opportunity to pray but I don’t think anyone wants to force anyone to pray.
I don’t think “less government republicans” care about what you do with your life but why should there be special status granted to people or why should we change the definition of marriage based on behavior? Why do they define their entire existence by what they do in bed? I see no problem letting gay people get married but there are questions that need to be answered. There are too many vague definitions about who is gay and who isn't. There is no minority status for any group who can declare or not declare their status and there has never been a law declaring that what someone does with their sex organs qualifies them as a protected group under the civil rights act and there never will be. If you look at a woman, which is also a protected minority in spite of the fact there are more women than men walking the US, she can't declare herself a man (unless there is a sex change operation) therefore her status is unquestionable and this unquestionable status that does not require self proclamation is the test for status and not behavior.
It is wrong to give anybody special status under the law based on behavior...well, I take that back, we incarcerate criminals for behavior but to protect a group or to define a group under the law for how they choose to express their sexuality? No way. In addition, what do you do about bisexuals or men who like to have sex with men but consider themselves straight? Gay is not cut and dried, moreover it is behavior and not like being Latino or a female...both which have protected status.
Another thing that may come into question here is homosexuality being or not being a choice but that’s a separate topic altogether. With race and sex, science can identify chromosomes and genes which meet absolute scientific proof of one's status. The day science locates a gay gene then people can talk to me about it since then they will have hard science rather than social science to back their claim.
In the first reply, the problem here is the same problem we have seen in this country over and over again. Just as with African Americans, gay peopls are somehow looked upon as sub-human, incestous, and criminal. They are no different from you or I.
The unfortunate problem is that it is normal and very human to fear what we do not understand. And many of us do not want to understnad. I'll give you the fact that this country isn't ready to change paradigms quickly but are those against gay marriage ready to try to accept gay people and families?
I am not saying one should go out and hug the first gay person you see but if you find out that someone you like or have just gotten to know is gay, don't cut them out of your life. They have hopes and dreams just like all of us and funnily enough they too think that marrying your cousin or your pet is not right.
All they are is people who want to love someone in a way that feels natural for them. It is not dirty or wrong. It's just who they are.
I agree. Gay people are as "normal" as anybody else is. Be they white, black, purple, blue, gay, straight, male, female, what have you. I know I'm in the minority on this particular issue, but a person's gender/color/sexual orientation really should have no bearing on the whole marriage discussion. I vehemently oppose gay marriage for the simple reason that nobody who supports it has adequately defined the boundaries that will define "marriage" and all its consequences in this brave new world. Despite my personal repulsion at the concept, if two guys or gals have feelings for each other that are similar in nature to feelings that I have for my wife, so be it. Because those feelings are of a positive nature, I will absolutely support that. But that has no bearing on whether or not I'll support their "right" to be legally recognized as a married couple. Not until questions such as:
** who gets custody in a divorce
** child support requirements
** what other relationships we are willing to accept as marriages
** etc., etc.
Your focus is on the emotional well-being of the parties involved, which is admirable. I would offer only that those emotional "rights" take a back seat to good old fashioned practicality. If you want to rage against the tempest being spouted by the religious right, go for it. That's not gonna help you (the left) win this fight, however.
Post a Comment