The Constitution is not a toy…put that down!

[jay_corvid]

I was going to post about something else tonight, but the President moved me. Sadly, I was moved in such a way as to once again speak out against the leadership of my country. Given my previous post, I feel inclined to first point out that I love my country deeply. I am not on one side of the aisle or another, but rather take each issue on it’s

Comments

[jessicagrelecki]

after president bush's condemnation of such a "debauchery of the institution of marriage," the camera quickly zoomed on the director for some family organization (read: the religious right). i'm going to assume that each political party has to appeal to most leftest and rightest beliefs from their party. in this, the democrats hold up utopian, pseudo-communistic ideals for those far-lefters. and the republicans must then, turn to the organizations, for whatever reason, feel that homosexual marriage is a perversion of an already failing system. in all honesty, i don't think it's more than lip service to the religious right. and while i'm glad for that, i'm disgusted at the reckless use of the political podium. the homosexual marriage spiel was no more than a political bargaining chip from people with social power. but the people watching, the MILLIONS, don't think twice about it. the children sitting at home, the people who support our president on blind faith, and other uninformed voters, take what he says as true.

Hello

[bulgaroctonus]

While I did not see the president's speech, if I know my politics, he did not say he would support banning homosexual unions, but rather homosexual marraige. While I myself am an agnostic, I am realistic enough to know that the vast majority of this country would not accept homosexual unions, let alone marraige. The vast majority of this country believes that homosexuality is wrong, and in some places, until recently, being gay was tantamount to committing a crime. The Constitution does not mention marraige nor should it. It should not allow or ban homosexual marraige. That decision should be left to the states. Those are my thoughts.

Ed Fitzmaurice

Re: Hello

[jay_corvid]

Here is the transcript of that portion of his speech...

"Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."

If they want to call it something other than marriage, but still provide the local AND federal benefits that "married" people receive, then I won't complain. But changing our Constitution is a horrific misuse of power.

Being black used to be tantamount to being a criminal too. I think in this case, as in that one, once politicians get their noses out of social rights and cease their inflammatory rhetoric, everyone else can let it go as well.

Thank you for your comments.

Jay

Re: Hello

[gnomehat]

hi, random person here.

"On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people..."

terribly sorry if i misunderstand, but is there any way that judges CANNOT "force their arbitrary will upon the people..."? does anyone besides me find that statement patently absurd?

the people theoretically elect the people who appoint the judges, no? so what relevance does this statement have at all? and in fact the people have about as much say in what their judges do as they have in what their elected officials support, no?

bush isn't listening to the people, hell, nobody denies he LOST the popular vote anyway.

Re: Hello

[jay_corvid]

Hello Random Person,

I have to agree. Judges interpret law and if they feel that the law about protecting civil rights is more valid than one banning gay marriage then that is pretty much their job. A President that tries to get the Constitution modified based on his own personal religious views, now that sounds like someone forcing their arbitrary will on the people.

Thanks for chiming in!

Jay

Oh by the way

[bulgaroctonus]

Having read your posts here and elsewhere, I have to say that I have the utmost respect for you and your ability to argue. Of all those people of differing opinions I have ever met, you have shown the greatest ability not to be a rabid, foaming at the mouth, left-of-me, individual. Just thought you should know that.

Re: Oh by the way

[jay_corvid]

I have been known to foam on occassion, but I find that being calm and rational prevents your views from being dismissed outright.

I do appreciate your words. Someone taking the time to say something nice is rare indeed.

Jay Corvid