Frist breaks with Bush on stem cell research - Politics - MSNBC.com
Senator Frist the flip-flopper. But it is about time the man found his own voice, and stopped being the mouthpiece of the President on the Senate floor. Do you suppose he finally read the Constitution and figured out that he is in a separate branch of government?
Friday, July 29, 2005
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
This (Pharmacists) Madness Must Be Stopped
Several states allow pharmacists to decline to fill prescriptions based on their conscience. Other states are trying to require that pharmacists provide medicines that doctors have prescribed. Now federal lawmakers are holding hearings on so-called 'duty to fill' laws.So went the introduction to a story on NPR's Morning Edition I listened to this morning.
In my mind this debate can have only one outcome: the doctor/patient relationship should be upheld in every case. No third party should be allowed to insert their moral judgment into the doctor/patient relationship, period, unless invited to do so! Pharmacists, like the rest of us, have a right to their opinions, however misguided, but they should not be allowed to let those opinions adversely affect the people they are supposed to be serving. And yes, they have a right to their individual principles, but those principles should not be allowed to interfere with patient care.
And make no mistake, they are in the service industry, all they do it dispense drugs, and occasionally dole out advice. Pharmacist, though a valuable link in the chain medical chain of care in America, are not indispensable, and are certainly not specialist, like doctors. Who, after all, is a Pharmacist to substitute his or her judgment for that of the doctor or the patient? Frankly, I find the whole business of refusing to dispense drugs because of you religious beliefs repugnant and just another sign of how far the falsely righteous will go to foist their belief system on us all.
If they are morally opposed to birth control and might be required by their employers to pass out prescription birth control pills or the morning after pill, then their professionalism and duty to their customers should prevail. If they still object, then they should find another profession, one in which their conscience will not be overly burdened. Or at least have to decency to refer the customer to another Pharmacist whose brain is not clouded with self-righteous religious dogma.
Will a bill pass out of Congress that will end this madness once and for all and compel Pharmacist to fill prescriptions or find another job? Its doubtful, and even if the a Bill did manage to pass both houses with its common sense still intact, Bush would never sign it into law because he lacks; well he is just lacking so much its hard to know where to begin.
Bill Wouldn't Wean U.S. Off Oil Imports, Analysts Say
Bill Wouldn't Wean U.S. Off Oil Imports, Analysts Say
Would be too much to ask for real leadership and vision from Washington on this issue? If other nations can put together a coherent energy policy; e.g. France and Japan, why can’t the United States? Must we bicker and fight about everything?
Would be too much to ask for real leadership and vision from Washington on this issue? If other nations can put together a coherent energy policy; e.g. France and Japan, why can’t the United States? Must we bicker and fight about everything?
CNN.com - Roberts faces questions - Jul 25, 2005
CNN.com - Roberts faces questions - Jul 25, 2005
I don’t think there is any doubt that in the long run Roberts will be confirmed as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, all questions aside.
I don’t think there is any doubt that in the long run Roberts will be confirmed as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, all questions aside.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Pakistan?s religious schools in spotlight again - World News - MSNBC.com
Pakistan?s religious schools in spotlight again - World News - MSNBC.com
Does anyone else get the feeling that we shall be fighting this war against terrorism for many generations to come?
Does anyone else get the feeling that we shall be fighting this war against terrorism for many generations to come?
Sunday, July 24, 2005
CNN.com - Suicide car bomb kills?22 near police station - Jul 24, 2005
CNN.com - Suicide car bomb kills?22 near police station - Jul 24, 2005
Yes, we are continuing to turn the tide of against the insurgency in Iraq, we have them on the run, they have no place to hide; we are routing them out, rounding them up and ending their rein of terror. The people of Iraq should rejoice, shouldn’t they?
Yes, we are continuing to turn the tide of against the insurgency in Iraq, we have them on the run, they have no place to hide; we are routing them out, rounding them up and ending their rein of terror. The people of Iraq should rejoice, shouldn’t they?
Al Qaeda leaders seen in control - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
Al Qaeda leaders seen in control - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
It doesn’t sound to me as if terrorism is on the run, on the wane, contained, or bottled. We are failing; we are loosing this war, which is more about ideas than it is about weapons. George W. Bush was not the man to lead us in this fight; he has not the leadership ability, intellect, vision, or wisdom to see us through this phase in American history.
We have been ill served by his bumbling attempts the stem the tide of terrorism across the globe; indeed he and his conceited minions have managed to swell their murderous, ideological ranks. It is only a matter of time before bombs and blood, murder and mayhem re-visit American shores. Thank you George Bush for your unflagging devotion to naiveté, myopic world vision, stupefying arrogance, and the lack of vision that now finds the world besieged by terrorism.
It doesn’t sound to me as if terrorism is on the run, on the wane, contained, or bottled. We are failing; we are loosing this war, which is more about ideas than it is about weapons. George W. Bush was not the man to lead us in this fight; he has not the leadership ability, intellect, vision, or wisdom to see us through this phase in American history.
We have been ill served by his bumbling attempts the stem the tide of terrorism across the globe; indeed he and his conceited minions have managed to swell their murderous, ideological ranks. It is only a matter of time before bombs and blood, murder and mayhem re-visit American shores. Thank you George Bush for your unflagging devotion to naiveté, myopic world vision, stupefying arrogance, and the lack of vision that now finds the world besieged by terrorism.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Rick Santorum; Poster Boy for Intolerance and Ignorance
Rick Sandorum (R) Pennsylvania could be the poster boy for the intolerance and ignorance that has infested the body politic of the Republican Party like a cancer unchecked by common sense and a firm grasp for the principles of freedom that are supposed to provide the foundation for our Republic. What hateful people those in Republicans Right are turning out to be.
Was Senator Kennedy right to call Santorum on the carpet for his nonsensical remarks? I say yes. And just how does choosing an alternative life-style aid and abed the priest sex-abuse scandal? The fact that the wide-spread abuse came to light in Boston is just happenstance. What if the scandal had sprung to life in Philadelphia, would the good Senator have painted his own with the same sanctimonious brush?
And is the good Senator insinuating that all priests who molested children were homosexuals, are homosexual? If memory serves, children of both sexes were molested with equal vigor and vulgarity. And aren't most sex offenders heterosexual? Is their deviant behaviors caused by alternative life-styles as well, or is there another more heterosexual cause for their behaviors, like a dysfunctional family life, or bad parents?
What's the next step Santorum would have society take? Ban and or separate homosexuals and lesbians from heterosexuals? Should we create a state just for them, or perhaps banish them to Midway Island? Should be codify into law what so many conservatives advocate by word and deed, and relegate homosexuals and lesbians to second class citizenship once and for all for having the gall to love someone from the same sex?
Perhaps Senator Santorum's opinions and observations would not chaff as much if they were not drawn from the deep well of ignorance that almost every conservative seems to drink from. And if the source of that well water were not the Holy Bible, a tome that any reasoned person will admit is full of contradictions, and is little more then a really good book of fiction, none of which can be proved. On this I have to side with Senator Kennedy form the great state of Massachusetts. And by the way I love Boston!
Was Senator Kennedy right to call Santorum on the carpet for his nonsensical remarks? I say yes. And just how does choosing an alternative life-style aid and abed the priest sex-abuse scandal? The fact that the wide-spread abuse came to light in Boston is just happenstance. What if the scandal had sprung to life in Philadelphia, would the good Senator have painted his own with the same sanctimonious brush?
And is the good Senator insinuating that all priests who molested children were homosexuals, are homosexual? If memory serves, children of both sexes were molested with equal vigor and vulgarity. And aren't most sex offenders heterosexual? Is their deviant behaviors caused by alternative life-styles as well, or is there another more heterosexual cause for their behaviors, like a dysfunctional family life, or bad parents?
What's the next step Santorum would have society take? Ban and or separate homosexuals and lesbians from heterosexuals? Should we create a state just for them, or perhaps banish them to Midway Island? Should be codify into law what so many conservatives advocate by word and deed, and relegate homosexuals and lesbians to second class citizenship once and for all for having the gall to love someone from the same sex?
Perhaps Senator Santorum's opinions and observations would not chaff as much if they were not drawn from the deep well of ignorance that almost every conservative seems to drink from. And if the source of that well water were not the Holy Bible, a tome that any reasoned person will admit is full of contradictions, and is little more then a really good book of fiction, none of which can be proved. On this I have to side with Senator Kennedy form the great state of Massachusetts. And by the way I love Boston!
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Durbin Cries, Iraqis Die, Afghanistan Fries, and Bush Continues to Lie
While Senator Dick Durbin (from my state) breaks down in tears on the Senate floor, woefully decrying his remarks about Guantanamo Bay, and the insurgents poke a finger in the eye of the Administrations assertions that their daily carnage is winding down, the war in Afghanistan, which was supposed to be almost at an end, is flaring anew.
Is the Taliban coming back after having regrouped, refinanced, and gained new recruits from the ranks of those Muslims who now see America as a defiler of their sacred text? Does anyone with a rational functioning mind, the ability to use deductive reasoning and foresight, really believe that the ongoing debate surrounding our little Cuban holiday spot is doing no harm to America in the minds of those who need very little reason to do us harm? Even naiveté has it bounds?
Barely reported on the evening news cast(s) is the fact that all over Afghanistan, the war is flaring up, but it is particularly brutal in the south and east of the country where scores on both sides continue to die. Just yesterday the Pentagon reported that five American soldiers were wounded in fierce fighting in the southern Afghanistan. Talk of 11-hour gun battles does not sound like a situation that is well in hand from a military standpoint. How much longer is going to take to stabilize a country that would have been a done deal, if not for the lack of U.S. troops, concentration of effort, and adequate attention from the Bush Administration?
In hindsight (and foresight for that matter) how smart was it to invade Iraq with the job in Afghanistan incomplete? Now we seem to be fighting a two front war with insurgents whose numbers are seemingly limitless; there are after all over a billion practitioners of Islam.
Pretty soon Iraq is going to run out of cars to blow up; how long before the insurgent start importing them pre-rigged with explosives, if they are not already doing so?
The Bush Administration has lost all creditability with me and mine; the lies, half-truths, and just plain preposterous rhetoric that ooze from the White House on a daily basis make me ill. Do they (The Bushies) really believe half of the words that leach from their mouths like so much sludge from the Anicosta River? After Secretary Rice made a speech the other day in Egypt, on the importance of free, open and just elections, and opened the floor for questions, they all seemed to be about the desecration of the Muslim Holy Book. I wonder if her message got through? And Rice spent her time explaining how the U.S. respects all religions.
Actions, as they say, speak loader then words, and our action thus far when it comes to the treatment of those in Gito Bay send a very powerful message to the rest of the world: America and American are above the law; we believe in the rule of law, until it gets in the way of revenge and then, well, there is no rule of law. American life is sacred, all other life is well expendable, until we deem it worthy, and justice belongs to Americans; we are the law until further notice.
Anyone else feel as uncomfortable with the direction the "shining beacon on the hill" is headed. Our light seems considerable less bright, less comforting, less judicious, these days.
Is the Taliban coming back after having regrouped, refinanced, and gained new recruits from the ranks of those Muslims who now see America as a defiler of their sacred text? Does anyone with a rational functioning mind, the ability to use deductive reasoning and foresight, really believe that the ongoing debate surrounding our little Cuban holiday spot is doing no harm to America in the minds of those who need very little reason to do us harm? Even naiveté has it bounds?
Barely reported on the evening news cast(s) is the fact that all over Afghanistan, the war is flaring up, but it is particularly brutal in the south and east of the country where scores on both sides continue to die. Just yesterday the Pentagon reported that five American soldiers were wounded in fierce fighting in the southern Afghanistan. Talk of 11-hour gun battles does not sound like a situation that is well in hand from a military standpoint. How much longer is going to take to stabilize a country that would have been a done deal, if not for the lack of U.S. troops, concentration of effort, and adequate attention from the Bush Administration?
In hindsight (and foresight for that matter) how smart was it to invade Iraq with the job in Afghanistan incomplete? Now we seem to be fighting a two front war with insurgents whose numbers are seemingly limitless; there are after all over a billion practitioners of Islam.
Pretty soon Iraq is going to run out of cars to blow up; how long before the insurgent start importing them pre-rigged with explosives, if they are not already doing so?
The Bush Administration has lost all creditability with me and mine; the lies, half-truths, and just plain preposterous rhetoric that ooze from the White House on a daily basis make me ill. Do they (The Bushies) really believe half of the words that leach from their mouths like so much sludge from the Anicosta River? After Secretary Rice made a speech the other day in Egypt, on the importance of free, open and just elections, and opened the floor for questions, they all seemed to be about the desecration of the Muslim Holy Book. I wonder if her message got through? And Rice spent her time explaining how the U.S. respects all religions.
Actions, as they say, speak loader then words, and our action thus far when it comes to the treatment of those in Gito Bay send a very powerful message to the rest of the world: America and American are above the law; we believe in the rule of law, until it gets in the way of revenge and then, well, there is no rule of law. American life is sacred, all other life is well expendable, until we deem it worthy, and justice belongs to Americans; we are the law until further notice.
Anyone else feel as uncomfortable with the direction the "shining beacon on the hill" is headed. Our light seems considerable less bright, less comforting, less judicious, these days.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Understanding The Stem Cell Debate Part II - In-vitro Fertilization
The maelstrom swirling around stem cells seems to be one I cannot disengage myself from, probably because the arguments against using stem cells to research cures for some of the world's most vexing decease's, are so morally vapid, and devoid of common sense.
Those who oppose the use of embryos for stem cell research totally disregard the harm In Vitro Fertilization—the process that creates the embryos in the first place—does to unwanted embryos and those that do not take in the uterus and die as part of the process.
How many embryos are killed during the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) process for just one couple trying to conceive a baby? Isn’t that the destruction of life? And yet not one Republican lawmaker and very few on the Christian Right have spoken out against the process. Dubya (President Bush) recently had a multitude of "snow-flake" babies (those babies conceived of donated embryos) to the White House for a photo opportunity to demonstrate that frozen embryos can still create life. But missing were the numbers of embryos that were destroyed in the process of creating the cute little snowflakes.
Up to four embryos can be implanted in the uterus during a typical IVF procedure; this is to ensure that at least one attaches itself to the uterine wall and becomes a viable baby. If the other three embryo's do not take, they die. Again isn't this the destruction of life? And aren't couples that engage in IVF destroying life in order to make life? How many embryos does the average couple go through before conceiving a child or children, in the case of multiple births?
According to the CDC—the government agency charged compiling national statistics for all Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) procedures performed in the U.S., IVF only has an average 30.9% success rate. The ART report (from Year 2002) also found that about 69% of the IVF cycles carried out did not produce a pregnancy, and as the age of a woman increases, the chances IVF will work drop dramatically. And that even when IVF was performed on women under the age of 35 the success rate was less then 50%; I invite you to read the report entitled 2002 Assisted Reproductive Technology Rates National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports.
How many dead embryos do these statistics represent nationwide? And again, where is the outcry from the conservative camp about this brazen-and some might call it cavalier-disregard for human life? Where is the moral outrage from the Christian Right about this abomination; where is the indignation; where is Rick Santorum? Oh the hypocrisy is palatable and tastes oddly bitter, especially to those suffering from chronic diseases (like myself) who might find hope in a cure from research done with embryonic stem cells.
Perhaps it's because I am personally affected by the outcome of embryonic stem cell research that I feel so passionately about the debate. Or perhaps it's because I loath hypocrisy as one of the lowest forms of intellectual laziness, and self-induced ignorance. Or perhaps it’s because I value science over religious dogma (make no mistake this in a debate that springs from the fertile yet misguided minds of the religiously inclined); or perhaps it's a combination of all three reasons and many more I cannot name. But this remains a debate I cannot lay down because it insists on standing up and shouting that this issue stinks of wrong-headed politics and conservative religious doctrine. And we the American people lose once again.
Those who oppose the use of embryos for stem cell research totally disregard the harm In Vitro Fertilization—the process that creates the embryos in the first place—does to unwanted embryos and those that do not take in the uterus and die as part of the process.
How many embryos are killed during the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) process for just one couple trying to conceive a baby? Isn’t that the destruction of life? And yet not one Republican lawmaker and very few on the Christian Right have spoken out against the process. Dubya (President Bush) recently had a multitude of "snow-flake" babies (those babies conceived of donated embryos) to the White House for a photo opportunity to demonstrate that frozen embryos can still create life. But missing were the numbers of embryos that were destroyed in the process of creating the cute little snowflakes.
Up to four embryos can be implanted in the uterus during a typical IVF procedure; this is to ensure that at least one attaches itself to the uterine wall and becomes a viable baby. If the other three embryo's do not take, they die. Again isn't this the destruction of life? And aren't couples that engage in IVF destroying life in order to make life? How many embryos does the average couple go through before conceiving a child or children, in the case of multiple births?
According to the CDC—the government agency charged compiling national statistics for all Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) procedures performed in the U.S., IVF only has an average 30.9% success rate. The ART report (from Year 2002) also found that about 69% of the IVF cycles carried out did not produce a pregnancy, and as the age of a woman increases, the chances IVF will work drop dramatically. And that even when IVF was performed on women under the age of 35 the success rate was less then 50%; I invite you to read the report entitled 2002 Assisted Reproductive Technology Rates National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports.
How many dead embryos do these statistics represent nationwide? And again, where is the outcry from the conservative camp about this brazen-and some might call it cavalier-disregard for human life? Where is the moral outrage from the Christian Right about this abomination; where is the indignation; where is Rick Santorum? Oh the hypocrisy is palatable and tastes oddly bitter, especially to those suffering from chronic diseases (like myself) who might find hope in a cure from research done with embryonic stem cells.
Perhaps it's because I am personally affected by the outcome of embryonic stem cell research that I feel so passionately about the debate. Or perhaps it's because I loath hypocrisy as one of the lowest forms of intellectual laziness, and self-induced ignorance. Or perhaps it’s because I value science over religious dogma (make no mistake this in a debate that springs from the fertile yet misguided minds of the religiously inclined); or perhaps it's a combination of all three reasons and many more I cannot name. But this remains a debate I cannot lay down because it insists on standing up and shouting that this issue stinks of wrong-headed politics and conservative religious doctrine. And we the American people lose once again.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Understanding The Stem Cell Debate
In an all-too rare demonstrate of strong, bipartisan support, members of both ruling Parties in the House of Representatives joined together to overwhelmingly pass a bill to expand federally funded stem cell research. The measure would allow scientists to use stem cells derived from embryos created for in vitro fertilization which otherwise would be destroyed as medical waste. While many applaud the move as step in the right direction, predictably religious conservative have waved the abortion flag once again.Is this fair analogy? Are the religious conservatives right; is using embryonic stem cells in research akin to abortion? I don’t buy the analogy; after all we are not speaking of a human life here, we are speaking potential human life. Every sperm, and every egg is a potential human life. The non-partisan American Progress Action Fund published this explanation of stem cell vs. abortion yesterday in their daily newsletter:
UNDERSTANDING STEM CELLS: Don’t confuse stem cell research with the emotionally charged debate surrounding abortion; they are very, very different issues. An embryo is not a fetus; it's a cluster of about 150 cells, also known as a blastocyst, which forms a few days after the joining of a sperm and egg, and is no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. Within the center of this cluster are the stem cells, which are like biological blank slates. These cells have the potential to become any of the 200 kinds of cells that make up the human body. Many scientists believe stem cell research could one day be used to treat people living in pain with serious illnesses such as spinal injuries, Alzheimer's, strokes, brain injuries, Parkinson's, diabetes and heart defects.
I must admit that I have a personal stake in the outcome of this debate, I have Diabetes and someone very close to me has lived with MS for the past ten years, both ailments that further stem cell research could help cure. The conservative Republicans speak of a culture of life but conveniently forget the life that has already been born. Does human life cease to have value after a baby is born? Does a group of cells frozen in a Petri dish have (equal) more value than a living breathing, disease stricken human being? A blastocyst is not a human life (although Tom Delay would disagree); it is a grouping of cells that could become a human life if implanted into a viable womb. A sperm is not human life either, it is a group of cells then when joined with an egg could produce a human life. Should they be protected as well, since they have the potential of creating a human life? And if so, how, the sex police? Billions are wasted every time a man uses a condom, every time I man masturbates; should we make condom use and male masturbation illegal under the guise of protecting human life. How far do we as a society what to take this?
George W. Bush and other religious zealots point to adult stem cells as an alternative to those harvested from embryos. But it has been widely reported that adult stem cells are not as viable as those from an embryo. Again the non-partisan American Progress Action Fund published this explanation of adult stem cell vs. embryonic stem cells yesterday in their daily newsletter:
ADULT VS. EMBRYONIC: Bush advocated scientists using adult bone marrow and umbilical cord blood instead of embryonic stem cells. Umbilical and embryonic stem cells “are not in any way interchangeable,” said David Scadden, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and chief of the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Regenerative Medicine and Technology. In a letter sent to President Bush, a group of 80 Nobel laureates agreed, saying “current evidence suggests that adult stem cells have markedly restricted differentiation potential.” The fact remains that stem cells derived from bone marrow and umbilical cord blood have less potential than those from embryos. Adult stem cell lines are difficult to work with and cannot develop – or “differentiate” – into all types of cells like embryonic stem cells can; for example, they are unable to produce insulin-producing cells to fight diabetes. Umbilical stem cells also are only able to develop into “the components of blood – red cells, white cells and platelets.”
Other countries are pulling ahead of the United States in this very critical area of study because we have let religious zealotry invade the body politic and in so doing insinuate itself into public policy. U.S. scientists are going overseas to do research on stem cells and South Korea just announced significant progress towards cloning embryonic stem cells. But this goes far beyond U.S. dominance of the bio-tech industry; it speaks to the very nature of our society and what for it will take in the future. The debate over stem cells is just one of many battles that pit logic, science and the public good, again religious ideology, and if it continues we all loose. Do we want a forward looking progressive society governed by logic and intelligent discourse, or do we want a society governed by religious ideological passion that will in time end our dominance of science and technology?
Friday, May 06, 2005
DeLay Calls for Greater Humility; Oh Please!
Is this guy kidding? Tom Delay calling for humility and responsibility, please, does he even know what those two words mean? Speaking at the 54th annual National Day of Prayer, Delay said,
Has the man no integrity at all, has he no ethics, no moral compass guiding his pathetic little life? How can a man who professes to know and love God be so far from the shadow of his teachings? How shallow, vapid, and pathetic a man. I didn’t think it possible to feel more distain for Delay, but…
Just think of what we could accomplish if we checked our pride at the door, if collectively we all spent less time taking credit and more time deserving it… if we spent less time ducking responsibility and more time welcoming it, if we spent less time on our soapboxes and more time on our knees.
Has the man no integrity at all, has he no ethics, no moral compass guiding his pathetic little life? How can a man who professes to know and love God be so far from the shadow of his teachings? How shallow, vapid, and pathetic a man. I didn’t think it possible to feel more distain for Delay, but…
Monday, April 25, 2005
Christian Conservative Activists Declare Holy War on the Nations' Courts
This week's Newsweek Magazine has an excellent article on the Christian Conservative Republicans' Jihad against the third branch of our government. This sort of rhetoric only serves to undermine the judiciary in the eyes and minds of the people. It is not healthy and serves only a portion of the American population.
That portion that would see our freedoms stripped away and replaced by religious inspired laws, limiting abortions, sanctioning discrimination against Homosexuals, introducing biblical verse and doctrine into public school curriculum, hanging the Ten Commandments everywhere, and silencing the Democratic Party, or anyone who dared speak out against their increasingly radical and intolerant views.
It is a sad frightening spectacle unfolding within the Republican controlled halls of Congress and within small-minded conservative organizations across the country. In my mind, they and not the Courts are the real threat to the American way of life and system of governance; they and not the Courts are the activist who would re-write our laws to suit their narrow view of life, and we, the majority must fight back!
There are some conservative Christian Republicans, Tom Delay and Representative Steve King who would fundamentally change the structure of the Court system. King recently stated: "We could reduce the size of the Supreme Court...It doesn't take nine judges, it only takes one. It would just be Chief Justice William Rehnquist with his card table." While it is true that Article Three does not speak to the size of the Supreme Court, any attempt to change the composition of the Court would cause (I would hope) tremendous upheaval in the electorate, because I dare say most Americans look to the Supreme Court as their last bastion best hope for justice. Congress would, at its own peril realign the Court.
It is ironic that while we have American troops dying oversea to secure the blessings of liberty for others, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are under sustained attack by conservatives here in America; that while we fight fundamentalist Islam oversea, fundamentalists Christians are on the march in America and threaten to do what Osama Bin Laden dreams of: bring down the American Republic and replace it with a Theocracy; that while the American government shouts platitudes about the rule of law abroad, the rule of law, and the cause of justice is under seize by religious zealots here at home.
Is this the America we want to live in, one dominated by religious zealotry? Is this the America we want to bequeath to our children, an America where the judiciary is stripped of real power by religious extremists and is but a rubber stamp of the Congress and President? What then of our rights under the Constitution? What institution will protect our fundamental and Civil freedoms? Will we all have to prey before class; will public office holders have to swear allegiance to God before being allowed to take office; will agnostics and atheists be persecuted wholesale? How soon before the U.S. slides into Third World nation status, and the bold experiment ended in failure because the ignorant shouted the loudest?
That portion that would see our freedoms stripped away and replaced by religious inspired laws, limiting abortions, sanctioning discrimination against Homosexuals, introducing biblical verse and doctrine into public school curriculum, hanging the Ten Commandments everywhere, and silencing the Democratic Party, or anyone who dared speak out against their increasingly radical and intolerant views.
It is a sad frightening spectacle unfolding within the Republican controlled halls of Congress and within small-minded conservative organizations across the country. In my mind, they and not the Courts are the real threat to the American way of life and system of governance; they and not the Courts are the activist who would re-write our laws to suit their narrow view of life, and we, the majority must fight back!
There are some conservative Christian Republicans, Tom Delay and Representative Steve King who would fundamentally change the structure of the Court system. King recently stated: "We could reduce the size of the Supreme Court...It doesn't take nine judges, it only takes one. It would just be Chief Justice William Rehnquist with his card table." While it is true that Article Three does not speak to the size of the Supreme Court, any attempt to change the composition of the Court would cause (I would hope) tremendous upheaval in the electorate, because I dare say most Americans look to the Supreme Court as their last bastion best hope for justice. Congress would, at its own peril realign the Court.
It is ironic that while we have American troops dying oversea to secure the blessings of liberty for others, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are under sustained attack by conservatives here in America; that while we fight fundamentalist Islam oversea, fundamentalists Christians are on the march in America and threaten to do what Osama Bin Laden dreams of: bring down the American Republic and replace it with a Theocracy; that while the American government shouts platitudes about the rule of law abroad, the rule of law, and the cause of justice is under seize by religious zealots here at home.
Is this the America we want to live in, one dominated by religious zealotry? Is this the America we want to bequeath to our children, an America where the judiciary is stripped of real power by religious extremists and is but a rubber stamp of the Congress and President? What then of our rights under the Constitution? What institution will protect our fundamental and Civil freedoms? Will we all have to prey before class; will public office holders have to swear allegiance to God before being allowed to take office; will agnostics and atheists be persecuted wholesale? How soon before the U.S. slides into Third World nation status, and the bold experiment ended in failure because the ignorant shouted the loudest?
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Tom Delay's Dying Words?
Tom Delay that bastion of un-questionable morals and ethics, is once again speaking out of the side of his ill-informed mouth, once again attacking the third and co-equal branch of government for its failure to-gasp-rule the way he wanted them to in the Terri Schiavo case.
Speaking on Fox radio (where else?), Delay stated, "[W]e have the opportunity to set up courts; we can also dismantle courts and reorganize them." Huh? Do we now live in a Third World dictatorship where the Judiciary serves as a rubber-stamp for the power hungry, or worse yet, does not serve at all? This irresponsible statement from a man, a representative of the people, only proves that Delay is out of touch and out of step with the world.
Delay went on to attack Reagan appointee Associate Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for having the audacity to look, in part, to International Law in formulating opinions, and for using the Internet to do legal research. Delay stated,
Say Tom, isn't that ignorance dripping from the corners of your mouth? The foundation for American Black Letter Laws finds its beginnings in the federal and the many constitutions, but the courts also rely heavily on precedent established under Common Law. And our Common Law tradition springs not from the constitution, but from Great Britain, which has a long history of Common Law practice. Early Supreme Court cases were festooned with references to British Common Law cases, and indeed these cases formed the foundation of our own Common Law jurisprudence.
And America should not be an intellectual island where International Law is ignored because we arrogantly believe that our laws and our constitution are superior to all others, and that we have nothing to learn from other societies. That sort of hubris would never escape the lips of one more informed, more cultured, and more nuanced about the world at large.
As for Justice Kennedy using the Internet to research cases, ever heard of Lexis-Nexus, or Westlaw representative Delay? They are after all widely utilized legal references; V. Edward to Tom: here is a quarter, buy a clue! Delay's political demise cannot come soon enough for me.
Speaking on Fox radio (where else?), Delay stated, "[W]e have the opportunity to set up courts; we can also dismantle courts and reorganize them." Huh? Do we now live in a Third World dictatorship where the Judiciary serves as a rubber-stamp for the power hungry, or worse yet, does not serve at all? This irresponsible statement from a man, a representative of the people, only proves that Delay is out of touch and out of step with the world.
Delay went on to attack Reagan appointee Associate Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy for having the audacity to look, in part, to International Law in formulating opinions, and for using the Internet to do legal research. Delay stated,
[W]e've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States. That's just outrageous. And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous.
Say Tom, isn't that ignorance dripping from the corners of your mouth? The foundation for American Black Letter Laws finds its beginnings in the federal and the many constitutions, but the courts also rely heavily on precedent established under Common Law. And our Common Law tradition springs not from the constitution, but from Great Britain, which has a long history of Common Law practice. Early Supreme Court cases were festooned with references to British Common Law cases, and indeed these cases formed the foundation of our own Common Law jurisprudence.
And America should not be an intellectual island where International Law is ignored because we arrogantly believe that our laws and our constitution are superior to all others, and that we have nothing to learn from other societies. That sort of hubris would never escape the lips of one more informed, more cultured, and more nuanced about the world at large.
As for Justice Kennedy using the Internet to research cases, ever heard of Lexis-Nexus, or Westlaw representative Delay? They are after all widely utilized legal references; V. Edward to Tom: here is a quarter, buy a clue! Delay's political demise cannot come soon enough for me.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Bill Frist's Christian Jihad
In the latest broadside to be fired in the ongoing war between the Democrat's and Republican’s in the Senate over the time honored tradition of the filibuster, the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has decide to brand Democrats "enemy's of Christianity," on a nationally televised broadcast entitled "Justice Sunday" on April 24, sponsored by the ultra-conservative Family Research Council.
Jihad: Islamic campaign against nonbelievers: a campaign waged by Muslims in defense of the Islamic faith against individuals, organizations, or countries regarded as hostile to Islam...
The Councils' president Tony Perkins has stated in a letter to supporters that "[W]e must stop this unprecedented filibuster of people of faith." The letter went on to state: "[F]or years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the ACLU, have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms...filibustered nominees are being blocked because they are people of faith and moral conviction...[T]hese are people whose only offense is to say that abortion is wrong or that marriage should be between one man and one woman."
Is there any wonder that I have such a bad taste in my mouth whenever the words Religious Right are uttered in my presence?
Now it is one thing to visit a church or religious organization in search of votes, quite another to deliberately set out to brand your opposing Senators anti-Christian; attack a co-equal branch of government whose only offensive is doing their constitutionally mandated job; and debase yourself and your institution by groveling at the feet of the ignorant Bible-quoting minority for votes. Whatever respect I have for Bill Frist—and trust me it could be measured in stingy spoonfuls—has completely evaporated with this detestable stunt.
Have Republican lawmakers completely lost sight of their fundamental obligation to the constitution, to the American people, and America itself? Or is that they do not understand, or respect the document, We The People, our country? How much longer are the silent majority going to remain so while the fundamentalist Christians chip away at our constitutional institutions and rights as citizens? Enough is enough already!
Jihad: Islamic campaign against nonbelievers: a campaign waged by Muslims in defense of the Islamic faith against individuals, organizations, or countries regarded as hostile to Islam...
The Councils' president Tony Perkins has stated in a letter to supporters that "[W]e must stop this unprecedented filibuster of people of faith." The letter went on to state: "[F]or years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the ACLU, have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms...filibustered nominees are being blocked because they are people of faith and moral conviction...[T]hese are people whose only offense is to say that abortion is wrong or that marriage should be between one man and one woman."
Is there any wonder that I have such a bad taste in my mouth whenever the words Religious Right are uttered in my presence?
Now it is one thing to visit a church or religious organization in search of votes, quite another to deliberately set out to brand your opposing Senators anti-Christian; attack a co-equal branch of government whose only offensive is doing their constitutionally mandated job; and debase yourself and your institution by groveling at the feet of the ignorant Bible-quoting minority for votes. Whatever respect I have for Bill Frist—and trust me it could be measured in stingy spoonfuls—has completely evaporated with this detestable stunt.
Have Republican lawmakers completely lost sight of their fundamental obligation to the constitution, to the American people, and America itself? Or is that they do not understand, or respect the document, We The People, our country? How much longer are the silent majority going to remain so while the fundamentalist Christians chip away at our constitutional institutions and rights as citizens? Enough is enough already!
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
The Looming American Theocracy
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances…US CONT, amend 1.
The Founding Fathers have failed. They knew the dangers of allowing religion to invade the body politic and infect it with misplaced righteousness, and they attempted to separate the two, leaving politics to the Public Square and religion to the privacy of church and home. They attempted to enshrine the notion in the federal constitution, but their wording was too vague, their intent is lost on the often rudimentary and perfunctory understanding most Americans (including politicians) have of their own founding document. The Founding Fathers have failed, or is it we who have failed them?
There has been a new trend afoot across the landscape of American society. It arguably started with the election of Ronald Reagan and it continues apace today. That trend has taken religion out of the private sphere and thrust it—sometimes by force—into the Public Square with disastrous results to the fundamental rights of all Americans. Across this great land, the Religious Right populated by Christians of all stripes is making its voice heard, from pharmacists refusing to dispense medications, to the insistence by some that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public venues; from the new push to teach Intelligent Design alongside The Theory of Evolution, to the pervasion of religious rhetoric in the body politic; from the right to life movement to the enshrinement of discrimination in state constitutions in an attempt to deny homosexuals and lesbians the right to marry—in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the federal constitution. Across this great land, secularism is under siege.
It is in my mind a dangerous trend that borders on fanaticism, the same extremism we are fighting in other parts of the world that seek our destruction. It is ironic that we seem to be accomplishing from within, what they seek to bring about from without; namely the collapse of American democracy, and the rise of Theocratic state, one based not on Islam, but on Christianity. It was faith, or more accurately, misplaced, and misrepresented faith that saw the Congress of the United States pass a law designed to help the one, and not the many; that saw the Congress cross the line and violate the separation of powers so vital to the continued well-being of our nation; that saw the President violate his Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. It is this religious fanaticism and the pandering to thereof that increasingly pits the Legislative and Executive against the Judicial in an effort to discredit the latter in the eyes of the American public.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States…US CONT, art. VI, clause 3.
The seminal 1947 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Everson vs. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing et al. laid the legal and Constitutional foundation for the Separation of Church and State Doctrine that is both embraced and rejected by the American populace. In it the Court ruled:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
The case itself, which I counsel all to read, is stimulating and illuminating reading in that the justices recount the history of religious persecution and the oft disastrous results of mixing religion and government. And the case points out that the Founding Fathers had solid reasons for erecting a wall between religion and government. Their reasoned arguments make sense to those who seek to keep religion private and prevent it from unduly influencing public law and policy. On the other hand their arguments seem to fall on the deaf ears of those who seek to make all citizens subject to the conservative dictates and confused morals of Christianity.
As we sail deeper into the bosom of the 21st century, America is ever morphing into a multi-cultural society, one in which peoples from diverse religious backgrounds increasingly interact both publicly and privately. Islam, by all accounts, is the nation’s fastest growing religion; like it or no, the religion is here to stay and flourish. But so too is Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions of the Far East. Yes, we are a nation born of Christian people, but we can hardly lay claim to being a wholly Christian nation when so many religions are practiced freely within our borders.
The government (state and federal) must represent these Americans too; the message must not be sent through plaques and monuments erected on public property, or through political rhetoric, that other religions have no place in America; that Christianity is the favored religion. That is a direct affront to the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Nor must the government seek to ban personal freedoms based on religious dogma as the Republicans seek to do by banning Gay Marriage and trying to enact an Amendment banning abortion. Nor must School Boards seek to force our public schools to teach religious dogma; we rail against this in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, how can we condone it here in America?
I am personally of no faith, I am an agnostic, and came by my position within myself, using logic, history, and the oft heinous behaviors of mankind towards one another as my guides. I do not prescribe to the belief that the Bible (which is full of glaring contradictions, wonderful poetry, spectacular fables, and is after all is said and done a great work of fiction) holds the answers to all of life’s mysteries and problems, and I certainly do not believe that our government received its mandate from God as many of those in the Religious Right movement believes. Our government springs from the will of the people as embodied in the Constitution. It is the constitution politicians owe their “public” allegiance to, not the Holy Bible.
Not that I do not understand the need for religion in some peoples lives. Indeed, religion can offer stability and focus in lives that suffer from a lack of both. It can offer moral grounding, and sound societal principles that can last a lifetime, but religion is not for everyone, and everyone does not need religion to live a happy and whole life. The government must represent ALL American on a fair and equal footing before the law, not just those Americans who clutch the Bible close to their breast. The government must not be seen to endorse any one religion over another in order to hold true to the spirit and letter of the First Amendment. To do otherwise is to invite the very melding of religion and government the Founding Fathers sought to avoid.
Ask yourself this question: is worship of the Devil a legitimate religious practice, and if so, if that religion seeks to have the Ten Commandments of Devil worship displayed on public grounds, on what basis could that be prevented if the Ten Commandment of God are also displayed therein? And if the answer is no, that Devil worship is not a valid form of religious worship, why not; what makes it any less legitimate than the worship of God? After all, the Devil is actually mentioned in the Bible, in the very first chapter. And what of worship of Witches, and Pagan worship, and the other myriad religions that now make up the American cultural landscape; should they be given equal footing and display rights in the public square that Christianity now enjoys? If the government were to hold true to the First Amendment, how could they be legally be denied equal access and space? Remember the 1st Amendment proclamation: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…
Religion and religious teaching and dogma have no place in the public arena, they should remain private. If Christians—who now claim by the way that they are being persecuted by not being allowed to insert Intelligent Design into public school curriculum—want to limit their personal freedoms that is their choice to make; do not seek to impose your beliefs on others. If you morally object to contraception, do not practice birth control, and do not become a pharmacist, where you can interfere in the (legitimate) health care of others; if you do not believe in pre-marital sex, don’t engage in it; if you do not believe in Gay marriage, don’t practice it; if you do not believe that abortion is right; don’t have one; if you believe in Intelligent Design, or Creationism, learn it in the church or at home, but do not seek to have it taught in the public schools.
Leave the rest of us alone; don’t seek to have your misguided beliefs legislated into public laws that we all must follow. If you want you have a right to freedom of religion, then conversely, I—and others of like mind—have a right to freedom from religion.
History has shown that any society that sought to incorporate religious doctrine into the very fabric of public law, has suffered at the hands of those who would use such laws to oppress the populace, especially women and minorities. And one only has to look at modern-day Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, and other countries where Islamic law holds sway to validate my assertions. In all of these countries, women and minorities are the ones being oppressed in the name of religion. Real human progress has stopped and whole segments of the population are valueless. Is this what we want for the U.S.; a Theocracy, a nightmarish script straight from the pages of A Handmaid’s Tale? Is this where the Grand Experiment in representative Democracy is leading us? Are we casting aside the constitution if favor of the Holy Bible?
Monday, March 21, 2005
Regarding Terri Schiavo
I can understand both sides of the Terri Schiavo debate, but at what point do you let go of a loved one. Terry is clearly not going to get any better, and I think it is cruel and selfish for the parents to let her linger in her current state. To what end? What is Terry’s quality of life? If it were her wish not to suffer in this state, then her desire to be let qo should be respected. It is, or was, her life after all, and if we do not have ultimate dominion over ourselves, what type of real freedom do we have?
And I think the Republican led Congress has way overstepped it authority on this one and will hopefully get slammed by the federal courts. The Republicans talk a blue streak about the need for government to stay out of our lives, for government to get off of our backs, for the federal government to respect states rights and here they are mucking around in a very, very personal issue; the hypocrisy is galling. Would any of us want Congress butting into our personal business?
It is clear to this citizen that the Republican’s seem to distain the third branch of government (the “unelected” judicial branch) and seek to discredit it in the minds of the citizenry by calling into question the very legitimacy of its rulings on the law by stating that they are not elected. Even a sitting Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (AS) furthered that ignorant school of thought in a speech last week chastising the Court’s recent ruling vis-Ã -vis the right of the states to execute minors.
The Republican’s also state that we are (the United States) should uphold the principles of a “culture of life,” but they think nothing of cutting funding for Medicaid and other medical and or social programs for the poor (guess they are not included in the culture of life, because their lives are worth less then others); letting tens of thousand die in Sudan; turn a blind eye to torture and murder in U.S. detention faculties overseas; refuse to support common-sense prescription drug coverage for all Americans; and support the state-sanction murder of U.S. prisoners. Sounds like a culture of life to me, how about you?
And I think the Republican led Congress has way overstepped it authority on this one and will hopefully get slammed by the federal courts. The Republicans talk a blue streak about the need for government to stay out of our lives, for government to get off of our backs, for the federal government to respect states rights and here they are mucking around in a very, very personal issue; the hypocrisy is galling. Would any of us want Congress butting into our personal business?
It is clear to this citizen that the Republican’s seem to distain the third branch of government (the “unelected” judicial branch) and seek to discredit it in the minds of the citizenry by calling into question the very legitimacy of its rulings on the law by stating that they are not elected. Even a sitting Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (AS) furthered that ignorant school of thought in a speech last week chastising the Court’s recent ruling vis-Ã -vis the right of the states to execute minors.
The Republican’s also state that we are (the United States) should uphold the principles of a “culture of life,” but they think nothing of cutting funding for Medicaid and other medical and or social programs for the poor (guess they are not included in the culture of life, because their lives are worth less then others); letting tens of thousand die in Sudan; turn a blind eye to torture and murder in U.S. detention faculties overseas; refuse to support common-sense prescription drug coverage for all Americans; and support the state-sanction murder of U.S. prisoners. Sounds like a culture of life to me, how about you?
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
California Gay-Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
In what is another battle won on the same-sex marriage front (yes I support same-sex marriage--albeit a temporary victory--a state court in the nation's most populous state, California, has ruled that a law banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer stated in his opinion that "It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners."
The judge's ruling is sure to be appealed by any number of conservative groups and perhaps even the state, and it might be a while before we see final resolution on the issue of whether or not same-sex marriage violates the California state constitution. But it is gratifying that yet another state court has ruled that laws outlawing same-sex marriages are unconstitutional because they violate the equal protection clauses of the states' founding document. California's ruling comes close on the heals of two such rulings in Washington state, and one in New York in the past six months.
California's Senior Assistant Attorney General Louis Mauro acknowledged in a hearing in December that the state is "a leader in affording rights" to same-sex couples. But he cited tradition as the reason the state should uphold the existing definition of marriage. Judge Kramer disagreed stating "[T]he state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional."
I couldn't agree with the judge more! Once again this is not an issue of tradition, or religion, or even morality, it is an issue of equal protection before the law. It was tradition until recently to deny people of different races the right to marry; surely no one in the Year 2005 would (rationally) defend the right of the state to deny mixed race marriages on the basis of tradition. A tradition, no matter its intent or import to a segment of society, should not be adhered to if the fundamental constitution rights and or statute mandated Civil Rights of the citizenry are trampled, or otherwise set aside in order to honor said tradition.
Homosexuals (Gay men and lesbian women) are citizens of this nation, and their respective states, and such are constitutionally guaranteed equal protection before the law (see the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution as well as state constitutions). And if the state can find no compelling reason to deny same-sex marriage, it must allow it; marriage after all is a fundamental Constitutional right codified under Loving vs. Virginia. It matters not--or should matter not--what religion--any religion--has to say about the matter, because the institution of marriage as regulated by the many states is a Civil Institution, govern by civil law.
However, this might all be a moot point if California voters approve an amendment this coming November to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage. If approved this amendment would follow 13 other states that did the same thing last November, effectively halting freedoms march in parts of the United States, relegating Gays to the status of perpetual second class citizens.
As I stated in a previous articles posted herein, the passage of these amendments to the various state constitutions underlies that by-and-large the American people (ordinary citizens and law-makers alike) lack even a basic understanding of the constitution and how our government is supposed to be run. Not do they understand or appreciate the tenets of real freedom and equality. That is frightening for the future of our nation…but the battle in this war is far from over…
The judge's ruling is sure to be appealed by any number of conservative groups and perhaps even the state, and it might be a while before we see final resolution on the issue of whether or not same-sex marriage violates the California state constitution. But it is gratifying that yet another state court has ruled that laws outlawing same-sex marriages are unconstitutional because they violate the equal protection clauses of the states' founding document. California's ruling comes close on the heals of two such rulings in Washington state, and one in New York in the past six months.
California's Senior Assistant Attorney General Louis Mauro acknowledged in a hearing in December that the state is "a leader in affording rights" to same-sex couples. But he cited tradition as the reason the state should uphold the existing definition of marriage. Judge Kramer disagreed stating "[T]he state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional."
I couldn't agree with the judge more! Once again this is not an issue of tradition, or religion, or even morality, it is an issue of equal protection before the law. It was tradition until recently to deny people of different races the right to marry; surely no one in the Year 2005 would (rationally) defend the right of the state to deny mixed race marriages on the basis of tradition. A tradition, no matter its intent or import to a segment of society, should not be adhered to if the fundamental constitution rights and or statute mandated Civil Rights of the citizenry are trampled, or otherwise set aside in order to honor said tradition.
Homosexuals (Gay men and lesbian women) are citizens of this nation, and their respective states, and such are constitutionally guaranteed equal protection before the law (see the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution as well as state constitutions). And if the state can find no compelling reason to deny same-sex marriage, it must allow it; marriage after all is a fundamental Constitutional right codified under Loving vs. Virginia. It matters not--or should matter not--what religion--any religion--has to say about the matter, because the institution of marriage as regulated by the many states is a Civil Institution, govern by civil law.
However, this might all be a moot point if California voters approve an amendment this coming November to the state constitution banning same-sex marriage. If approved this amendment would follow 13 other states that did the same thing last November, effectively halting freedoms march in parts of the United States, relegating Gays to the status of perpetual second class citizens.
As I stated in a previous articles posted herein, the passage of these amendments to the various state constitutions underlies that by-and-large the American people (ordinary citizens and law-makers alike) lack even a basic understanding of the constitution and how our government is supposed to be run. Not do they understand or appreciate the tenets of real freedom and equality. That is frightening for the future of our nation…but the battle in this war is far from over…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)