Thursday, July 15, 2004
How to Undermine Your Own Arguments Part I:
Let the People Have Their Say!
One of the arguments put forth during the heated debate on the FMA this past week was that people should have their say, rather than relying on judges to determine the rights of minorties on constitutional principles. There is a point to that, arbortion remains a contentious issue because it was a right afforded by the courts. But isn't that part of the role of the courts? To use the constitution to balance the more unsavory urges of the majority on certain principles like equal protection under the law? Ever hear of Tyrrany of the majority?
Anyway, the debate over FMA and same-sex marriage is a good thing, people (I hope) will look at their relationships and find meaning rather than relying on poltical rhetoric on both sides. A small number of us may even learn something about people who are different than ourselves. Let the people have their say, that's the Republican's rallying cry on this issue and to some extent I agree. But wait! In light of thier defeat yesterday in the Senate, FMA proponents have a new goal, banning the government of the District of Columbia from recognizing gay marriage from other states. Since we don't have a vote in Congress, we have no say. So far, despite the fear of same-sex marriage spreading, roughly 43 states got to decide this issue for themselves. Five have extended some protections to same-sex couples and thirty eight have choosen not to at this time. So, why can't the resident's of DC decide this for themselves?
If the GOP leadership moves forward with their plans in the House to impose Congress's will on recognition of same-sex marriage in DC, they will further undermine their position by ignoring their own rhetoric of letting we the people have our say.
From Foxnews:
Learn from your mistakes boys.
One of the arguments put forth during the heated debate on the FMA this past week was that people should have their say, rather than relying on judges to determine the rights of minorties on constitutional principles. There is a point to that, arbortion remains a contentious issue because it was a right afforded by the courts. But isn't that part of the role of the courts? To use the constitution to balance the more unsavory urges of the majority on certain principles like equal protection under the law? Ever hear of Tyrrany of the majority?
Anyway, the debate over FMA and same-sex marriage is a good thing, people (I hope) will look at their relationships and find meaning rather than relying on poltical rhetoric on both sides. A small number of us may even learn something about people who are different than ourselves. Let the people have their say, that's the Republican's rallying cry on this issue and to some extent I agree. But wait! In light of thier defeat yesterday in the Senate, FMA proponents have a new goal, banning the government of the District of Columbia from recognizing gay marriage from other states. Since we don't have a vote in Congress, we have no say. So far, despite the fear of same-sex marriage spreading, roughly 43 states got to decide this issue for themselves. Five have extended some protections to same-sex couples and thirty eight have choosen not to at this time. So, why can't the resident's of DC decide this for themselves?
If the GOP leadership moves forward with their plans in the House to impose Congress's will on recognition of same-sex marriage in DC, they will further undermine their position by ignoring their own rhetoric of letting we the people have our say.
From Foxnews:
Republican officials also said it was possible they would stage other votes on gay marriage before the fall elections.
The possibilities include a measure to prevent the Washington, D.C., city government from recognizing gay marriages
Learn from your mistakes boys.
