Another heart-wrenching personal story that puts a face on the gay rights movement. This article exemplifies why I don't argue for Gay marriage-to argue you must concede the fact that there is another side and it may have a legit point(s). Debate is not needed when there is a right and a wrong-the wrong obviously being that the government is allowed to tear loving stable families apart. I am pretty sure no hetereosexual couple has to take that into account when starting a family.
It also illustrates that gay couples wishing to start a family are told to wait until the majority decides its okay, which is an indeterminate amount of time. Another point as to why reform through legislation-only is ludicrous.
Finally, no offense to Albanian but it is embarrassing that the United States is falling behind Albanian in the civil rights department.
5 comments:
"It also illustrates that gay couples wishing to start a family are told to wait until the majority decides its okay, which is an indeterminate amount of time."
Your story doesn't demonstrate this point at all. The delay wasn't caused by waiting for the state legislature, or any majority, to say anything. The story demonstrates that there are crappy judges out there -- this one, Paul M. Blake, was taken out behind the woodshed by the state supreme court -- and stupid, degenerate court-appointed attorneys. Both are occupational hazards when you want to rely on courts to make your decisions for you.
Anyway, it won't be interminable. As I've reported elsewhere, polling guru Nate Silver's regression model, based on demographic and political trends, predicts that by 2016, most states will have legalized gay marriage, with Mississippi alone holding out until 2024.
Hey, I want universal health coverage, too, and the arguments against it are equally irrational, but I don't think it's the sort of thing that an unelected body should be mandating from on-high.
Myk, I know your heart is in the right place but comparing health care debate to that of Civil Rights is like your comparison to the abortion issue, incompatible. I can argue with you about universal health care since there is truly no such thing in any country. Nearly everyone agrees that a sick person should be treated (a basic right) but for what health conditions, how long, how to pay with finite resources etc that's a debate. When an issue effects everyone there needs to be a consensus, compromise and reasonable. However, when an issue is concerning only the well-being of one group or more aptly the repression of a minority, the government is design for the sole purpose of protecting those rights (what is the purpose of government if it can't protect our rights). Our founding fathers knew that legislation can create tyranny thus spread the power among the three branches as checks and balances.
You are failing to realize that there is no argument against gay rights, if you have one please tell me. No one has. Your fear of polarizing the nation and ending the gay rights dialogue is not a reason to tell the government to stop doing its job of protecting gay rights. Since there is no debate there is no reason for all the branches of the government not to restore rights of a minority. That asshole of a Judge was able to proceed with the ruling because of murky legislation laws on adoptions. This story exemplifies as I have already argued that every branch of the government needs to be used to recetify this agregious failing as soon as possible.
If you stand by your position I want you to go to Arkansas with your family and tell a gay couple, "Hey look Nate Silver who is infallible said you should be allowed to have start a family in the next decade or so. So please don't piss people off by sending letters to the President or using our court system because a court system obviously shouldn't be used to restore rights taken away from you by the majority"
History will look back at your position as it looks back at the restoration period following the Civil War, "Let's not polarize a nation because the majority's feelings is greater than that of a group's civil rights". Legislation branch created the Jim Crow Laws and the Amendments. The Executive branch issued the Emancipation Proclamation and the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. The Judiciary branch ruled Plessy and also Brown. We need all branches of the government protecting rights and protecting itself from taking away rights.
As Thomas Jefferson said "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
and also
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Myk, I see oppression, your argument to wait in the face of oppression is as bad as those who are anti-gay marriage. Though those who are anti-gay marriage at least have the excuse of ignorance and prejudice. What is your excuse Myk?
We've been around this block several times already and little purpose is served by repeating myself.
But, since you ask, here is my excuse. I actually have two. One is that, as a general matter, I believe in the value of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people -- and not a government by the Courts.
By and large, courts are not well suited to be engines of social change. I have a case right now involving a challenge to Pennsylvania's formula for the distribution of a particular subsidy to school districts. I have an expert witness who is a professor at NYU, and he has testified in a number of cases, and has actually been hired by a court to advise the judge from time to time. He told me once that he can say unequivocally that he has never seen a case in which the plaintiff's success actually resulted in anybody getting a better education.
Perhaps my example of universal health care wasn't the best, but my point is that just because something is bad, doesn't mean that it's a good idea for the courts to fix it.
Here's my second excuse, and it actually is my real excuse. And know that you don't share this belief, but I believe fairly strongly that gay marriage will be established more quickly, accepted more widely and that it will be more secure and enduring, if it is done legislatively. Period.
I know we have already touched this subject thoroughly (unfortunately I can’t stop from placing my opinion in hopes you will have a change in mind). I also apologize, I came off harshly which is never my intent but always creeps in when I argue.
I never understood the purpose of a government/democracy if it can’t protect the rights of its people. I believe that social issues (education, public works, regulations etc.) are best decided through compromise, legislation since everyone is affected. I believe that Civil Rights is not a social issue instead, “are a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from unwarranted government action and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression”. Thus gay marriage is not social issue and up for debate. Therefore, should never be at the whims of the majority’s beliefs and feelings.
I firmly believe that the greatest power of our government is in the hands of the legislation, the ability to dictate peoples’ lives, decide Judges, end Presidencies etc. The founders of our country also recognized that the greatest harm can come from legislation (except maybe when Bush was in power) where majority tyranny can explicitly strip citizens of their rights, hence the inclusion of separation and balance of power into the government. When legislation fails, it is the duty of the two branches to correct and fix it. I have never argued for a court government, instead I argue that when dealing with the oppression of Civil Rights a government serves no purpose if it doesn’t end the oppression. It is no longer “for the people” but “for some of the people”. The Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branches are all fallible which is why there are three branches versus one, to mitigate the damage of one during a fallible moment. It is important to be critical and vigilant about all actions of the branches.
I do not think you are critical enough of legislation even after you saw it strip away rights across the nation last November. Your belief that a legislation-only track for Civil Rights is flawed on multiple points. One, that legislation somehow rids our nation of prejudice bigots and makes the country less polarized. After the Civil Rights acts of the 1960s the dissenting opinion didn’t disappear, people still hate blacks-an opinion should never be considered in policy-making because it is based on the oppression of rights. Prop 8 of California has no legitimacy because the majority is trampling the rights of the minority. You believe that legislation is better than the other two branches because of its foundation on majority rule. One pro-civil rights Judge is still better than 7,001,084 ill-informed right stripping Californians. Two, that somehow court cases retard educating people that gay marriage is in fact a right- Court cases I think put personal faces on the travesty and also brings it into the public view (loving families not allowed to be together during death). The California court decision forced Prop 8 and brought awareness to the oppression. How quickly would same-sex marriage occur if the court cases hadn’t forced the issue? Legislation by itself is not the quickest way to right a wrong- all three must work in tangent (fyi Executive branch- Obama is currently sucking at doing). When legislation was giving us the 3/5 compromise it took an Executive Order to force the issue. When legislation was humming along on the segregation compromise it took a court ruling to force the issue.
Finally I think you perceive gay rights as a social issue and not as a civil rights issue because of your desire for legislation-only. Social issues take debate, time and acceptance to work. Civil Rights on the other hand do not and everyday that passes in which the government does not protect those rights the government lacks legitimacy.
Every time you hold legislation to a higher standard (on the misplace belief that the majority always eventual gets it right) - as the only means to protect civil rights, remember that the death of every democracy, from Greece to Rome, from France to Germany was by the vote of the majority. We need our whole Government and citizens vigilantly protecting our civil rights. Right now legislation is not doing its job, the other two branches better step it up.
Post a Comment