Political Primate

FMA? That's a bad idea.

Tue, 05 Aug 2003 19:53:39 GMT

So, it looks like there's growing support for the Federal Marriage Amendment. After the Congress gets back from their break, they're planning to deal with it.

Hopefully a few heads will cool down in the interim. And here's why . . .

. . . FMA is a TERRIBLE IDEA.

The Constitution currently grants states control of licenses/contracts within their borders, with very few overriding exceptions that switch power to the feds. These exceptions are things that break other amendments - the 14th being the biggie, as used in regards to interracial marriage.

Altering this because a few states might legalize gay marriage is putting the baby out with the bathwater. While I am not obsessed with states' rights, this is one situation where the state really should have the right to decide for itself. This is not the sort of thing we're supposed to change the Constitution over, folks.

Lawrence v. Texas

Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:49:34 GMT

What’s interesting, in the aftermath of the Lawrence v. Texas case, is the way conservative pundits are responding.

One of my personal favorite arguments comes from the always entertaining Cal Thomas, who fumed that, “[i]nevitably, [Lawrence v. Texas] will force the schools to teach homosexuality as normal and not just an “alternative lifestyle”. The question is – so? Teaching children that sexual attraction can vary fails to strike me as a danger to the moral fiber of the nation. Normal is different for different people. It’s normal for me to think that Halle Berry, for example, is damn sexy, whereas it’s normal for my straight friends to feel the same way about Ashton Kutcher. Telling kids that their feelings are natural seems rather enlightened to me.

There’s been a large amount of fuming, as well, about how the Lawrence v. Texas is apparently going to be used to strike down laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity. That laws against fornication are in danger I don’t dispute, although the majority of states no longer have such laws, and the ones that do certainly don’t enforce them. (Fornication being sex between unmarried persons, for the unaware.) However, the dire warnings about the dangers to laws against bigamy, polygamy, adultery, adult incest and bestiality, (I’ll handle obscenity in a bit) make a slippery slope argument that demeans the courts and the legislatures. A major power of the government is that of drawing the “line in the sand”. Whereas consensual homosexual sex between adults has no inherent dangers in and of itself, bestiality, for example, does. Hell, not only is it nonconsensual for the animal, it’s downright abusive towards poor Bossy or Spot. Adultery is rightly considered immoral because it breaks the promise inherent in marriage, of faithfulness. Adult incest is a little trickier – my inner libertarian can’t help but think that, hey, consenting adults – but the medical dangers of heterosexual incest, at least, probably gives the state ample reason to ban it.

As for bigamy and polygamy . . . It’s interesting that most of the people who fret that Lawrence will open the gateways for marriage beyond the monogamous brand are generally Bible-thumpers. Have they failed to notice that the Bible never prohibits polygamous relationships? And that most of the major players in the Old Testament, (from which they draw their anti-homosexual arguments, for the most part) have multiple wives? This is not to suggest that I approve of polygamous relationships, as women are almost always victims in such matters, but it does make one wonder . . .

And what about obscenity? Er, Justice Scalia, with all due respect, I fail to see how Lawrence puts obscenity laws at risk. Totally different issues. Care to explain?

The pundits who openly admit that it’s about their own religious beliefs are refreshing. To them, however, I point out that the Bible says very, very little about homosexuality. And since when did the United States become a theocracy, that religious beliefs should determine our laws, anyway?

Inauguratory Posting

Tue, 03 Jun 2003 02:06:53 GMT

Pet peeve of the day:

The Christian Right's continued insistence that the United States is, ahem, “a Christian country”.

Look, I have nothing against Christianity, per se, but the United States is not a Christian nation. We were never intended to be. The God referenced in the Declaration, on our money, etc. etc. is “Nature’s God”. Although one could certainly consider “Nature’s God” to be the Christian Jevovah, it tain’t necessar’ly so. Most of the Founders were tepid Christians at best, with the major players generally subscribing to Deism, as opposed to organized faith.

In fact, the Founders wanted a nation with a firm separation between church and state. While I doubt they would have been overly zealous about Christmas trees on public property, the Treaty of Tripoli makes clear that the “Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”. (Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified on June 10th, 1797.)

And yet they claim the Founders would be appalled at the drift of the United States from Christianity? Like hell they would have.