For Them What Care
Latest Entries Older Entries" Guestbook Contact Me My Profile Diaryland

I'm not at all sure about the constitutional amendment thing. I haven't made up my mind yet. For me, attempting to pass a new constitutional amendment is the equivalent of dropping a tactical nuke on the discussion. At that point, the country either adapts to the near finality of the situation, moves out of the country, or revolts. None of those opinions really leaves room for debate.

As longtime readers know, I'm against gay marriage philosophically (not due to religious beliefs) but am also in the camp that says meet the other side half way by allowing civil unions. I know, I know, the more fanatical elements of the opposition want you to think even this view is akin to supporting Jim Crowe laws or supporting the 3rd Reich. If the defenders of the status quo can moderate their position and rhetoric, why can't the advocates for change?

You know, it would be better if the executive, legislative, and judicial branches continued to work as expected without all these turf battles. When the executive branch starts ignoring laws created by the legislative branch before the judicial branch even has the oppotunity to revoke them you really do have a recipe for disaster. Take the San Francisco Mayor for instance. I'm pretty sure we've seen this type of behavior before. Before it was a Governor ignoring a federal law to integrate schools. Now it is a Mayor ignoring a state law that defines marriage. How did that previous crisis end and how will this one?

We are suppose to use the legislative process to advance our agendas. Judicial activism is one thing; bad in an of itself. Having the enforcers of law (the executive branch) ignore it without penalty is as bad today as it was when minority rights was the question of the day. Do you really want Governor Arnold to follow Mayor "ignore the laws" example? How about President Bush? I know many of you think Bush already ignores laws but would you _really_ like him to ignore enforcement of what he deems bad law? It's not the executive's job to do that. They are suppose to enforce them all with equal vigor.

But now Bush is having to threaten the tactical nuke option in a sense saying "if you can't play by the rules I'm going to have to end the discussion once and for all." In this case his reasons could be may. It could be something he honestly believes the country needs to stop the continued deterioration of our moral foundation. It could be something he doesn't agree with, knows it won't pass, but is doing to shore up his political base. It could also be a simple message to the country calculated to make people slow down and think. Both sides that is. It takes a long time to make something like that happen (if it ever happens) and Joe and Jane six-pack's attention is pulled from an immediate, actual crisis (California) to allow diplomats, bureaucrats, lawyers, and judges solve the problem without the public losing confidence in the government.

That last paragraph might be hard to understand...I told you I often pull dribble out of this mad mind.

I've also been hearing people say the government shouldn't get involved in protecting the sanctity of marriage. Really? If it's not the government's place to protect such things whose responsibility is it? Do you really want to bring back the Crusades? Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. Just because the government uses the term "marriage" to define a certain group of people as a method for providing "incentives" for social engineering doesn't mean they've stolen the right to re-define it. (Besides, if "marriage" is now a government term to be re-defined however it choices, what is there to stop them from changing the term "register to vote" to "being baptized?") Before this century, no major religion has ever defined marriage as anything accept being between a "man" and a "woman." Since this century, only a very few fringe groups have started breaking from tradition to start allowing same sex marriages. These are in such small numbers however that they are not even enough to qualify as a tend.

You know, I can't change the definition of what constitutes qualifying as a Native American simply because I want to be entitled to the same rights and privileges given to that group. I was born here. By my not being categorized as such does that make me a second class Native American? Why can't I petition the courts to change the definition? Why can't I get everyone to see that the traditional interpretation is too narrow and unfair?

I guess I'm done writing for now. After all that I still don't know what I'm thinking here. It does seem that there isn't a magic solution to this whole business. Maybe I support the call for an amendment but am against it actually passing. All you allowed to do that with a straight face?

previous - next - links



� colin-g 2001-2003