By Hume's Ghost
This June, two of the primary issues that Bill Frist plans to bring to a vote in Congress will be Constitutional amendments to prohibit flag-burning and gay marriage (h/t Alonzo Fyfe). Apparently, writing homophobia into the United States Constitution and turning the flag into a sacred icon will help us win the "Long War" against terror, reduce the widening income gap, reduce the trillion dollar deficit, bring health care to the 45.8 million uninsured, improve our education system, fix the flawed electronic voting systems, make gerrymandered districts competitive, put an end to D.C. corruption, reduce the 15,000 dollar average household debt, etc. Apparently, we will not be able to confront these problems unless we can make sure that gays don't have legal protections and benefits that encourage them to stay in stable monogamous relationships and that people don't set cloth on fire.
This June, two of the primary issues that Bill Frist plans to bring to a vote in Congress will be Constitutional amendments to prohibit flag-burning and gay marriage (h/t Alonzo Fyfe). Apparently, writing homophobia into the United States Constitution and turning the flag into a sacred icon will help us win the "Long War" against terror, reduce the widening income gap, reduce the trillion dollar deficit, bring health care to the 45.8 million uninsured, improve our education system, fix the flawed electronic voting systems, make gerrymandered districts competitive, put an end to D.C. corruption, reduce the 15,000 dollar average household debt, etc. Apparently, we will not be able to confront these problems unless we can make sure that gays don't have legal protections and benefits that encourage them to stay in stable monogamous relationships and that people don't set cloth on fire.
Gay Marriage
There are already several excellent arguments circulating around the blogosphere opposing an anti-gay marriage amendment on the grounds that it violates federalist principles, with Volokh Conspiracy contributor Dale Carpenter arguing in a paper for the Cato Institute that such an amendment is "unnecessary, anti-federalist, and anti-democratic", concluding that "whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy, no person who cares about our Constitution and public policy should support this unnecessary, radical, unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation's traditions and history," so I will here offer a different reason that this amendment should be opposed that is unrelated to the legal issues.
Actually, the reason to oppose this amendment isn't mine, although I agree with it. The reason was expressed in a speech given by freshmen legislator David Englin on the state floor in Virgiana back in January. A bold speech considering it was only Englin's third day in session. In it, he quotes the following from George Washington's Letter to the Jews of Newport, Rhode Island (1790)
It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens."Gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance." Let that swirl around in your brain for a second, as it's a powerful sentiment. That is exactly what a Constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage would do - it would give bigotry sanction, to persecution assistance.
America is better than that. We have nothing to fear from gay marriage. Heterosexual marriages will not magically dissolve. The sanctity of marriage will not be threatened. I have to wonder if anyone who says such a thing understands what the sanctity of a marriage is in the first place. A marriage can not be given sanctity by the state or the church, a marriage is given sanctity by the love and commitment that those who enter into it bring. That is the sanctity of marriage, and any marriage so feeble that it is threatened by someone else being in a loving committed relationship is a marriage that had no sanctity to begin with.
Senator Frist declares that "marriage is under attack." What is under attack is the notion that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect each citizen's opportunity to pursue happiness as he/she sees fit to do so without state interferance.
Flag Burning
In Pakistan the Koran is holy and sacred, and to burn it is considered blasphemy, a crime punishable by death. I submit that a Constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning is also a blasphemy law which differs in the degree of punishment, but not in kind.
This amendment would turn the flag into a sacred icon, something that is at least a spiritual violation of the Establishment clause. Setting aside punishment, what is the difference between Pakistan's prohibition of Koran burning and prohibition of flag burning? There is none, the reasoning is the same: that the act is a dangerous attack against what each represents, Islam and America, respectively.
A flag burning amendment is worshipping a false idol because it puts the symbol before what the symbol represents: free speech. It is an attempt to disguise nationalism as patriotism, but there is nothing patriotic about valuing a flag more than speech; and patriotism can not be spread by legislating orthodoxy.
The defender of this amendment will start by saying, "I'm for free speech, but ..." and then continue on to explain why he or she actually is not for free speech. Like Senator Frist, this person engages in the Orwellian effort of describing his or her opposition to free speech as a defense of free speech.
The flag is a symbol, but that symbol has no meaning if we put more value on defending an inanimate piece of cloth from "physical assault" than we put on defending what it is supposed to represent. Flag burning does not threaten our freedom, but blasphemy laws do.
*And as Alonzo astutely observes
[I]f this amendment gets passed, then the flag will stand for censorship rather than freedom. It will stand for the use of government authority to punish those who say things that others do not want to hear. The flag will become a symbol of opposition to the principles that most of those who fought under it were seeking to defend -- the right of people to express unfavorable opinions without being punished for it.Conclusion
Both these amendments contradict core American values, which is what makes it so noxious to see them being used as divisive politcal tools. Anyone who would at a time when our nation is faced with such significant problems waste time attempting to write bigotry and censorship into our constitution should be ashamed.
*Not included when first posted due to transcription error from my draft copy.
Everyone should read this new article by Robert Kennedy:
ReplyDeleteNearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)
...
But as the evening progressed, official tallies began to show implausible disparities -- as much as 9.5 percent -- with the exit polls. In ten of the eleven battleground states, the tallied margins departed from what the polls had predicted. In every case, the shift favored Bush. Based on exit polls, CNN had predicted Kerry defeating Bush in Ohio by a margin of 4.2 percentage points. Instead, election results showed Bush winning the state by 2.5 percent. Bush also tallied 6.5 percent more than the polls had predicted in Pennsylvania, and 4.9 percent more in Florida.(33)
According to Steven F. Freeman, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in research methodology, the odds against all three of those shifts occurring in concert are one in 660,000. ''As much as we can say in sound science that something is impossible,'' he says, ''it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote count in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error.''
If Dems aren't going to introduce my favorite piece of sarcastic legislation, to ban *cross*-burning (I think that'd inspire Jeff Sessions, among others, to defend free speech rights, since it'd affect his base), then could they at least propose that burning the Constitution be illegal too, and then have Bush prosecuted for it?
ReplyDeleteSorry, I forgot the link
ReplyDeleteWonderfully stated.
ReplyDeletethese faux Americans and Christianists who purport to pursue the values of our nation simply are traitors and should be treated as such when their moment of reckoning arrives.
ReplyDeletehistory will not judge their actions any more kindly that Nazis were judged. and neither should our courts were meting out punishment for their treason.
The Republicans fear that they will lose the elections this year.
ReplyDeleteSo they want to appease the religious right to have some chance at this year elections.
Nothing new under the sun...
João Carlos
Sorry the bad english, my native language is portuguese.
Plus lets just get to the core of the matter.
ReplyDeleteWe have way more important stuff to worry about. I think even Bubba in Redstate USA is starting to think this.
You can only do the circle jerk so many times untill it becomes like sooo 5 minutes ago.
To many trips to the well, and the American Taliban is starting to offend.
In addition to the odious nature of these two amendments themselves, consider the amount of time wasted by our Senate, the press, and our country as a whole, discussing and arguing about these amendments.
ReplyDeleteAnd then consider how much self-righteous passion these issues generate and how that passion polarizes people rather than bringing them together. Then ask yourself, is a divided nation weaker than an aligned nation?
I wonder if Bill Frist asks himself, are these really two of the most important issues the nation should be discussing?
Stupid question. Bill Frist is a highly intelligent man and knows exactly what he is doing.
These are wedge issues and the intention is to polarize the nation, bring out the base, and keep Bill's party in power.
What could be cleared evidence that his actions are in direct conflict with the interests of this country?
Apparently, writing homophobia into the United States Constitution and turning the flag into a sacred icon will help us win the "Long War" against terror, reduce the widening income gap, reduce the trillion dollar deficit, bring health care to the 45.8 million uninsured, improve our education system, fix the flawed electronic voting systems, make gerrymandered districts competitive, put an end to D.C. corruption, reduce the 15,000 dollar average household debt, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe only point of these proposals is to get Bill Frist elected President. They're not getting enacted, and he's not getting elected. (Thank God.)
Gee, I wonder why Congress is fairing so poorly in the polls and so many people don't approve of the job they are doing.
ReplyDeleteCould the Senate's current agenda have anything to do with Americans disapproval?
I think it does. I, like many other Americans, are sick and tired of Congress wasting their time and my taxpayer dollars on this type of crap instead of dealing with issues that have real consequences in the lives of most of the population.
Of course all the pork projects and corruption, is not endearing them to the general public either.
Not that I really disagree on either of these issues, but it's not really what I come to Glenn's blog to read about. I know of dozens of other blogs where I can read about the latest stupid things the Republican Congress is doing to waste time and taxpayer money. I go to those blogs after I've checked my favorites, such as this one, for the latest on how the Bush Administration is grabbing power and curtailing my Constitutional freedoms.
ReplyDeleteOf course people will write about what interests them; I'm just saying that I can't wait for Glenn to get back to blogging about what he usually blogs about.
My only disappointment is the fact that there are a sufficient number of ignorant people in this country, that he thinks this could actually help him.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Milo, this post is finely written. I particularly like the excavated bit from Washington; do you have an exact citation for the quotation?
ReplyDeleteAmong the many preposterous things about a flag-burning amendment, is this: How do you prove that an actual flag has been burnt, if the evidence, the flag, ends up being burnt?
Oh, good news, we won’t need an amendment banning gay marriage after all, they’ve found a cure for being gay.
ReplyDeleteWill Dr. Frist be able to come to the correct diagnosis from this videotape?
The Bible has something to say about that as well: "Matt 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
ReplyDeleteOf course the reason Jesus addressed that is because its such a powerful force. Its just human nature after all.
I particularly like the excavated bit from Washington; do you have an exact citation for the quotation?
ReplyDeleteYes, Letter to the Jews of Newport Rhode Island (1790).
I'll add it into the text.
Flag burning: has anyone explained to them that the traditionally proper disposal of a worn-out flag is burning? Would it be legal for protestors to respectfully burn a worn-out flag?
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad that Congress has solved all the other problems facing us, so that they have time to make same-sex marriage and flag-burning unConstitutional. [/sarcasm]
According to the Constitution's establishment clause, the U.S. doesn't have an official religion. So how is it that the governments of the states or of the nation can grant a sacrament like marriage? Isn't it preferable for the government to officially sanction civil unions that recognize a legal relationship between consenting adults, and let religious organizations take care of the sacrament part? Then the fundamentalists don't have to recognize John's and Steve's marriage, but they do have to recognize their legal relationship, rights, and responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteIsn’t this marriage amendment move really intended to remind the base (and particularly those on the far right that voted in record numbers in 2004) that they must be vigilant…that there is more work to be done…that they mustn’t stay at home in the 2006 midterm election?
ReplyDeleteIf I were asked to predict the Bush and Rove strategy, the following would be my calculations and conclusions:
1) The President is generally unpopular…especially when Iraq is part of the equation. The risk is that Iraq, coupled with corruption, Katrina, big debt, uncontrolled spending, and other scandals might feed a mindset to throw out the Party in power. Therefore they have to change the subject or provide the risks and reasons that would make that a bad idea.
2) What can the President bring to bear on the 2006 elections? He can’t travel the country stumping for Republicans because his presence will remind people about Iraq and the other negatives.
3) However, he can bring what he brought in 2004…a big turnout by those on the religious right. Those voters either don’t vote or they vote their values. The key is getting them to vote by giving them a reason. That is done in consort with religious leaders through the church structure…no need to be out on the campaign trail…the voters will get their marching orders each Sunday.
4) He can do that by reminding those voters (by virtue of a defeat of the marriage amendment) that they must get out and vote Republican. Losing the vote on the amendment is a strategic victory. They wouldn’t bring it to a vote if it made voters stay home in November. The grumbling by the leadership on the right is part of the strategy…they also benefit when their flock is mad…they can raise more money…and they can motivate them to take action. The leadership may be mad at Bush on some levels but they are fully in sync when it comes to keeping their eye on the main objective. Simply stated, if Bush delivers the Supreme Court, all other sins are forgivable.
5) So the goal is to be sure to point out that they succeeded in appointing two conservative Supreme Court Justices…and make it clear that one more appointment will likely mean victory for the movement for the next 20 years. They have to make it clear that if they lose the Senate, they may lose the ability to win the Supreme Court. This is the trump card of the strategy…they simply point out how close the movement is to achieving the “final” victory…they acknowledge to the voters that the administration has had some troubles (recall the admission of mistakes at the press conference with Tony Blair…no doubt part of the overall strategy) but they have never lost sight of the big prize…they delivered two conservative votes and they just need one more…the voters have got to stick with them if they want the big prize.
6) Is there any doubt what drives these voters? Does anyone question the fervor with which they seek to assert their influence? Is it possible they would stay at home if they understand what’s at stake? Not a chance.
read full article here:
www.thoughttheater.com
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThen the fundamentalists don't have to recognize John's and Steve's marriage, but they do have to recognize their legal relationship, rights, and responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteBut that would be WAY too rational. The whole issue revolves around fear, hatred and the ability to push buttons. There are a lot of Americans who are uncomfortable with their own sexuality and they're particularly uncomfortable with the idea that there are other people out there who aren't uncomfortable and are therefore having more fun. THEY are the enemy who must be stopped. Everything else (anti-abortion anti-birth control anti-gay anti sex-education anti-morning-after-pill anti-pornography) is all just details.
"America is better than that"?
ReplyDeleteWhat dreamworld do you live in?
America has NEVER, EVER in its history been above widespread rampant bigotry.
That such anti-gay propositions are taken seriously by our leaders is PROOF that Americans, as an aggregate, are NOT better than that.
Abstractly, politicians are nothing more than incarnations (literally) of the aggregate of the voters. Politicians don't exist in a vaccuum.
I have to wonder how many times they can use the same ploys before even the dimmest bulbs in the Dominionist herd realize they are being played for fools.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder how completeley gutless and unprincipled the supposed opposition party must be to pass up opportunities like this to take the kind of moral stand people are practically screaming for. That the party which is actively giving aid and comfort to an administration which poses the greatest threat to the constitution since the civil war wants to make it a crime for mere citizens to desecrate even a symbol of it is an irony that should not be left enexploited.
When the leader of the majority party in the Senate wants to make a national priority out of allowing a group with a hateful political agenda thinly disguised as religion to amend the constitution in order to deny the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to a group they have been persecuting and murdering for centuries, what more of an opportunity are they waiting for? Pick a side: hate and persecution or love and liberty. It's that simple. No need to make complex legal arguments at all. But no, they will wait to see how things poll on Fox News and do anything to avoid confronting Republicans' claim to a monopoly on 'values'.
Philip:
ReplyDeleteI go to those blogs after I've checked my favorites, such as this one, for the latest on how the Bush Administration is grabbing power and curtailing my Constitutional freedoms.
So amending the Constitution for the second time to restrict our civil liberties (the first didn't work out so well, yaknow) isn't "grabbing power and curtailing [your] Constitutional freedoms"? Pray tell, what would be?
Cheers,
Sorry Hume, while I agree we should hammer Frist on proclaiming that gay marriage and flag burning are the "biggest problems" facing American, proclaiming that doing so violates "core America values" is just as "over the top."
ReplyDeleteYour proclaimations don't make this so.
SINCE WHEN IS SUPPORTING GAY MARRIAGE A "CORE" AMERICAN VALUE!
I support your right to blog this, but you are nuts and using this bully-pulpit to declare what the readers should/should not support.
As such, you are "catapulting" propaganda just as surely as anyone else.
Yeah, hume, the founding father were all about gay rights...
ReplyDeleteIts what this country has founded on. Have you heard the rumors of what went on in centenial hall as they "formed" this great nation?
You'd have to be a little nutty to think burning some cloth achieves anything except boosting the Chinese economy
ReplyDeletedavidb.
What it acheives, as you well know, is it pisses people off. Why it pisses people off, as you also know, is that it upsets people who subsume their individual identity to a group. What you utterly fail to comprehend however is that subsuming your identity to a group is an unavoidable facet of human nature. Everybody does it, even you. That's why your railing against "patriotism", conflating it as you do with jingoism continues to strike me as seriously misguided.
SINCE WHEN IS SUPPORTING GAY MARRIAGE A "CORE" AMERICAN VALUE!
ReplyDeleteWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
men being created equal doesn't mean they should all marry each other...
ReplyDeleteBut feel free to disagree - you ain't gonna "prove" this one.
It didn’t take long for our dishonest trolls to equate opposing this amendment with support of same-sex marriage, they purposely ignored this quote whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage as a matter of policy, no person who cares about our Constitution and public policy should support this unnecessary, radical, unprecedented, and overly broad departure from the nation's traditions and history,"
ReplyDeleteOf course, that dishonest little trick will be used repeatedly in the next few months, they can’t admit that respect for the Constitution is why this amendment should be opposed. Anyone who has read the founding fathers on the use of the amendment process would realize that – but this is about mucking up the Constitution for partisan political purposes – nothing less.
Shame.
"America is better than that"?
ReplyDeleteWhat dreamworld do you live in?
I should have written:
"American should be better than that" or "That is not what America is supposed to stand for"
or something to the effect that it is contrary to the libertarian founding prinicples.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteHume, are you saying that this nation was actually "conceived" in some homosexual orgy and not in liberty?
Pursuit of happiness...
Happiness is synonymous with gaiety. Look it up. Jefferson didn't include the third triad of Lockeian philosophy, that being property, in the DOI. He substituted the pursuit of happiness. If you want to exhume Jefferson, and re-animate him, and ask him whether he forgot to include, "except in cases of same sex marriage," go for it.
NO ONE IS SAYING THAT to equate opposing this amendment with support of same-sex marriage!
ReplyDeleteYou are the dishonest one -- the point is that to proclaim that this is all about a "core American value" is something that, at best, reasonable people can disagree on.
In fact, a survey of American's "core values" would be the only way to make this proclaimation.
This has nothing to do with whether or not one supports gay rights - we are talking about the definition of marriage.
I am willing to let the people decide, but don't appreciate anyone annointing themselves as the "great decider" and telling me what my values are.
Happiness is synonymous with gaiety.
ReplyDeleteWell, we can have "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" without gay sex, right?
Proclaimations about "core values" don't make them so...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHumes, didn't think that America was suppose to stand for homosexual marriage either.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that gays should have no rights, just that you are overstepping what most people would accept as "core values" by making proclaimations that you cannot back up.
Great propaganda, but not a discussion that moves us to the truth.
Jefferson didn't include the third triad of Lockeian philosophy, that being property, in the DOI. He substituted the pursuit of happiness.
ReplyDeleteWhich was a nod to his fondness for Epicurean philosophy.
As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Short (Oct. 31, 1819)
And let's not forget that marriage at that time was a religious sanction and ceremony and we all know how Jefferson felt about the church, but let me remind you...
ReplyDeleteI have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Jefferson's word for the Bible?
Dunghill.
Jefferson didn't approve of heterosexual sodomy. Period. But if you want to go by what was accepted custom in his day, herbal abortions, or methods of terminating unwanted pregnancies were considered normal, proper and acceptable. It's called progress. Check it out. I hear even the Pilgrims got into it.
It is amusing that two amendments enforcing ideas which have overwhelming support among Americans somehow violate "core American values."
ReplyDeleteIf you simply do not agree with the amendments being proposed, then make your argument.
Changing the millennium old definition of marriage to include homosexual unions was not even an issue, nevertheless a "core American value" until the only non-democratic branch of government created it out of whole cloth and imposed it on their jurisdictions as constitutional law. It is unfortunate that we would arguably need to amend the Constitution to reign in rogue judges.
However, IMHO, amending the Constitution is a drastic alternative. So long as no idiot federal judge holds that the Full Faith and Credit Clause compels states to recognize homosexual marriages entered into in other states. there is no real reason to deal with this at the federal level.
Although I cannot see there ever being a justifiable reason for desecrating the flag, this is not the sort of thing we should be cluttering the Constitution with. However, there may be more creative ways of dealing with miscreants who desecrate the flag. When the Supreme Court decision overturning statutes barring flag desecration was entered, a LA state senator came up with a bill making it an absolute defense to the crime of battery if the defendant was physically chastising a flag burner.
So if my idea of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" involves stealing federal presidential elections, its constitutionally protected, right?
ReplyDeleteGreat propaganda, but not a discussion that moves us to the truth.
ReplyDeleteThe truth that frightens you so is that homosexuality is natural and normal, it occurs in nature across many species and it may even be a normal evolutionary response to over-crowding and over-population. It is in studies done with lab animals. It only frightens latent homosexuals.
You know what else is true, and why some people are frightened by science? In nature, monogamous bonding in most species is the exception, not the rule.
ReplyDeleteFantastic arguments being offered in defense of bigotry, that there are lots of bigots, so being bigoted is a core American value.
ReplyDeleteA survey to determine if this is a core American value? One could have conducted a survey in 1845 and found that the majority of Americans believed blacks are an inferior race. Would that have meant that hating blacks was a core American value?
In 1870 most Americans would have opposed giving women the right to vote. Does this mean that thinking of women as inferior to men is a core American value?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSo if my idea of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" involves stealing federal presidential elections, its constitutionally protected, right?
Smarter trolls, please.
Great post, Hume's Ghost. It brings them out of the wood work. I love that.
Although I cannot see there ever being a justifiable reason for desecrating the flag
ReplyDeleteI think ender gave a good one:
the very day they pass that amendment I am going to go out and buy as many flags as I can get my hands on and I will burn one a day in protest
Let's just ban all marriages. Humanity has survived countless millennia without marriage as an institution. Two people sharing their lives do not NEED approval from the church or government.
ReplyDeleteIt's all about the tax breaks and the ladies would never go for it. Ball and chain!
Great propaganda, but not a discussion that moves us to the truth.
ReplyDeleteYes, let’s have a little truth in labeling on this amendment shall we. Let’s call this amendment what it is:
The Republican Majority Preservation Act
This Act has nothing to do with marriage – Bush, Frist &Co. know it’s not going to pass, period – its only purpose is to make sure the religious right doesn’t sit out the election at home, and give something to Republicans to talk about other than reality.
So, create fear in them, tell them that their marriage is under attack.
Fear. The Republican answer to everything.
"It is amusing that two amendments enforcing ideas which have overwhelming support among Americans somehow violate "core American values."
ReplyDelete"Well, we can have "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" without gay sex, right?
Proclaimations about "core values" don't make them so..."
"I am not saying that gays should have no rights, just that you are overstepping what most people would accept as "core values" by making proclaimations that you cannot back up."
The core values of right-wing Christian voters do not equal the founding principles of this country. IMHO Hume's Ghost could maybe have chosen to substitute "founding principles of the United States" for "core American values", but that's splitting hairs big time. One last time: you people's personally held core values are not the same as the fundamental values and principles of equality in this country.
With regards to the flag burning amendment, some points to consider.
ReplyDeleteOne, is there even a wave of flag burning going on in this country that we should be worried about? I haven't seen a burned flag since the Supreme Court decision itself, to be honest. The thrill and shock value of doing it has quite actually diminished. Have the Powers That Be even considered the slight possibility that if this amendment passes, it could actually encourage more people to protest via flag burning? 'Cause there's nothing like being a noticeable martyr for a cause...
Two, will this flag burning amendment do anything to protect other things that get burned in protest, like say trash bins, overturned cars, corner grocery stores, Buddhist priests (I know, rude humor, but hey those guys were pretty flammable back in the day), entire city blocks? No it will not. And I say, protecting trash bins, cars, grocery stores, Buddhists, and entire city blocks deserve higher consideration than a piece of cloth that can be treated with flame-retardant chemicals.
It's [slavery] already legal in the US. And practised by the government.
ReplyDeleteYou obviously haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Ender, it was no accident byron didn't respond to your proposal. I've noticed that's one of his little techniques. His goal is to be as annoying as possible. Being passive aggressive here was the most annoying thing he could come up with.
ReplyDeleteTour dates for the book tour? When and where? It would really help to know -- are the dates posted somewhere and I'm just missing it?
ReplyDeletethanks
Don't tell me that John HANDOCOK is a psuedoname that proclaims the "core values" that he was founding our nation on!
ReplyDeleteThe delicious irony is that the right wing complains that legalizing gay marriage would force the courts to legalize incest as well.
ReplyDeleteNow that's as insane as saying legalizing gay marriages will mean we have to allow santorum's "man on dog" thing.
Get a grip - this thread is just too irrational and grandiose.
Believe what you want, but when you start talking about "American core values" you have a pretty heavy burden of proof and you can't carry it here.
Not a sensible discussion and there are so many other ways we could descuss issues like these that avoid the emotional rhetoric.
Whats the text of the Ammendment?
ReplyDeleteThey have no ground to stand on. This ammendment can be overturned faster than prohibition.
Make "burning-flags" - representations of the flag with intentional errors to keep them from being the flag (aka. just a blue rectangle without the stars) - and burn them (but make lots so you dont burn all the evidence). The defense is simple - It was NOT a flag. After juries in multiple states make a bunch of completely inconsistent rulings - with Texas making it effectively illegal to burn a candycane on account of the Red&White stripes - a movement to repeal a stupid and unenforceable law will grow.
However, there may be more creative ways of dealing with miscreants who desecrate the flag. When the Supreme Court decision overturning statutes barring flag desecration was entered, a LA state senator came up with a bill making it an absolute defense to the crime of battery if the defendant was physically chastising a flag burner.
ReplyDeleteIf by creative you mean fascist.
Note that a major proponent of the flag burning amendment is Democrat Jane Harman... who "represents" very-liberal CA-36 (where I live).
ReplyDeleteIt's one of many many many reasons why I've been volunteering for Harman's progressive Democratic opponent, Marcy Winograd.
I urge everyone reading this to do likewise.
Election Day is Tuesday, so there's no time to waste.
Here website is here:
www.winogradforcongress.com
Thanks,
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
Peeking into your neighbor's bedroom, an "American core value" since the days of the puritans at Salem. minding your own damn business could be an American core value.
ReplyDeleteSo we're going to convince the bigots and brownshirts not to be bigots and brownshirts with what? Our Fairy Wands Of Justice?
ReplyDeleteLook, no one ever went broke misunderestimating the general meanness and simple mindedness of the average Republican voter. Ever.
The Frists of the party will never stop appealing to the Barts of the party. Their mutual masterbation society is just too much fun for them.
I welcome this. They have no strategy. Keep spinning and pointing Fristy. See how many Progressives kick the crap out of the thugs in November when the majority finally realizes they can't eat bigotry.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteThe truth that frightens you so is that homosexuality is natural and normal
Not the issue - many support gay rights, but proclaiming protecting gay marriage it is an "American core value" is pretty wild propaganda!
If you think marriage is between a man and a woman, fine. Marry the opposite sex to you, if you've been fortunate enough to have had that determined correctly. I'v got news for you, it's not always so clear cut, (pardon the pun). No one is forcing you to go against your nature, and nature is what it is, and if they were, you would say something about it. And even if it was a rational choice, so the fuck what? Customs change. Mary Kay LeTorneau, (now Mary happily married Mary Fualaau went to prison for something that was actually quite common 100 years ago for men. See Will and Ariel Durant. They married when she was a pupil of his and spent their whole lives together. "American core values" is bullshit talking. The constitution was silent on the issue so we can assume the founders thought it was better left to the states. Peeking into your neighbor's bedroom, an "American core value" since the days of the puritans at Salem. Minding your own damn business could be an American core value, too. Just like live and let live if it doesn't hurt you or someone else. Americans are damn good at claiming they have been victimized by all kinds of imaginary ills and evils as a way achieve ulterior motives and harm another specific group or class. See Salem, witch hunts, a way to steal property from single women who owned it.
The flag burning amendment is purely symbolic and affects no one. The marriage amendment, doesn't affect me, I think marriage is bullshit anyway, but it does affect a sizable number of the population. They are both bullshit and neither have anything to do with "core American values" a stupid phrase that is meaningless for the most part. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all the core values I need. Through in a little privacy, which was a foreign concept to the founders the way we speak of it today, (hence the failure to specifically mention it), and you've got it all. If you are a recluse, being left alone is the pursuit of your happiness.
ReplyDeleteMy how noisy a few people can be. Might these few be afraid of a majority decision? If you knew the requirements for an amendment, and were confident in your cause, you would allow our constitutional democracy to move at its own pace. Even if an amendment is passed, you can begin the process of repealing it with your own majority.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is defined as the legal union of one man and one woman. So I think "ignorance of core American values" is a cute but foolish title.
In 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law of the United States, was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. It defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.
It's the law of the land, folks. Just because your values are different doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.
Float the amendment and see if it passes. (Incidentally, the method used to pass a constitutional amendment is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it then requires approval by three-fourths of the states.)
Philip said...
ReplyDelete"Not that I really disagree on either of these issues, but it's not really what I come to Glenn's blog to read about. I know of dozens of other blogs where I can read about the latest stupid things the Republican Congress is doing to waste time and taxpayer money. I go to those blogs after I've checked my favorites, such as this one, for the latest on how the Bush Administration is grabbing power and curtailing my Constitutional freedoms."
Philip, these two issues are about grabbing power and curtailing your constitutional freedoms.
A ban on gay marriage denies equal protection under the law and legitimizes discrimination.
Banning flag burning violates free speech.
Mabe neither of these issues affects you directly, but don't you have to ask yourself how long it will be before they ban something that does?
"[I]f this amendment gets passed, then the flag will stand for censorship rather than freedom. It will stand for the use of government authority to punish those who say things that others do not want to hear"
ReplyDeleteThat's just the thing: Frist, and the Republicans who support this measure, want the flag to say exactly that. It isn't that they're ignorant of the outcome, or that they're cynically manipulating the issue, believing it will never pass. No, they WANT the authority to punish those who say things that others do not want to hear.
The only thing that stands between the way things are now and the supreme court case that overturns anti-gay-marriage laws is bigotry.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said:
ReplyDelete"In 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law of the United States, was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. It defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.
It's the law of the land, folks. Just because your values are different doesn't mean everyone agrees with you."
It doesn't have anything to do with values. At least not in the way you mean. It is about not legalizing discrimination. And that applies to any group of people that reside in this country.
Any church that wants to ban gay marriage or not recognize it within their church are certainly well within their rights as far as I am concerned. However when you move that ban into the Government and the law it becomes legalized discrimination. And that is the ugly little fact that the religious right doesn't want to talk about.
The Republicans fear that they will lose the elections this year.
ReplyDeleteHopelessly naive comment. Republicans have nothing to "fear" by elections. The power is passed back and forth between the two parties to distract the public into thinking there is a constitutional republic still at work here.
Which party gets in is immaterial. You should have been paying more attention to the evidence of that.
It's the citizens of the United States not involved in government or corporatism who have something to fear--- Fascism: Stage 1. It's in its early stages but unforunately it's a disease which is always fatal.
phd9
ReplyDeleteanti sex-education?
How did a government mind control item get slipped into your list of the rights of free citizens to live their lives freely?
Is there anything more fascist than the government telling parents that it wants to control every aspect of their children's education?
That is perverted. I am suprised you would make that comment.
Are you guys saying that george washington was gay?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if there are any symbols that the left would consider destruction of, to be "fighting words".
ReplyDeleteShooter, I don't view the anti-flag burning amendment as a strictly left-right issue. Yes, I know it cleaves that way in the congress, but I believe there are plenty of conservatives who believe that such an amendment is an unwarranted instrusion of government into peoples' lives. It is really a Republican political move rather than a true issue that divides the left from the right.
And (as has been pointed out above) since the actual incidence of flag-burning is just about nil, and since passage of such an amendment is likely to increase flag burning as a means of protest of the amendment itself, I hope you will agree that the whole thing is really just a political tool to polarize the populace and bring out the base.
Put another way, is there nothing sacred to the left? No symbolic representation worth preserving?... Is anything left besides anarchical nihilism?
Your extension of the principle is invalid. Of course, there are sacred symbols that people on the left have. And the flag belongs to the left as much as to the right. (I don't have to remind you how many Democratic politicians have serveed in the armed forces, only to be smeared as "unpatriotic" by the right).
So opponents of the anti-flag burning amendment are not into "anarchical nihilism". They simply oppose unnecessary government interference in peoples' lives; a bedrock conservative principle.
Are you guys saying that george washington was gay?
ReplyDeleteJust Abraham Lincoln and Shooter242. No one is sure about Washington but he probably buggered someone once. There were an awful lot of Frenchman around back then.
Is there anything more fascist than the government telling parents that it wants to control every aspect of their children's education?
ReplyDeleteYes, there is. Letting someone like you educate your own kids might be just as bad, if not worse. You are comparing public schools to the Hitler youth. You probably shouldn't even be allowed to breed, but that's not up to me.
Isn't it ironic that an amendment banning flag burning turns the flag into a symbol that is much more deserving of being burned. Because it is the symbols of censorship, oppression, etc. which should be burned by all who value the continuation of our constitutional form of government.
ReplyDeleteShooter said... I wonder if there are any symbols that the left would consider destruction of, to be "fighting words".
ReplyDeleteProbably not. I doubt many people on the left function at the intellectual level of ignorant peasants in the middle ages.
shooter242:
ReplyDeletePS. For the love of all that is holy, would Disenchanted Dave PLEASE put up a different picture.
Let's take a vote, Shooter. Betcha more people vote for you buying yourself a brain. And noooooooo ... Wal-Mart won't do.
But soooo glad to see that you want to continue to have a "discussion" around these here parts seeing as the folks at the WaPo blog were not kind enough to "engage" you sufficiently.
Cheers,
HWSNBN blathers cluelessly:
ReplyDeleteChanging the millennium old definition of marriage to include homosexual unions....
"... where it was well established that men could take many wives (if they could afford such), women were chattel property, and war conquests could be either wives, slaves, or concubines as desired if not raped or slain."
Yep, the good ol' days. Be a shame if we start trampling on "tradition", I'd say....
Cheers,
Re: Flag burning
ReplyDeleteI wonder if there are any symbols that the left would consider destruction of, to be "fighting words".
Put another way, is there nothing sacred to the left? No symbolic representation worth preserving?
If not, what does that mean? Is anything left besides anarchical nihilism? Does anyone here consider the political consequences of such a threatening philosophy? Or does it just not matter?
Killing thousands of Iraqis, many of them innocent civilians, under that flag dishonors the flag. Lawbreaking by an official sworn to uphold the law and charged with a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed dishonors the flag. Attempting to encode narrow-minded religious prejudices into law above even the most personal human rights and freedoms dishonors the flag.
Worse, they dishonor the Republic for which it stands. No amount of physical damage to a piece of cloth could do that. Those crimes are part of the history of my nation (and for many readers, yours as well), for all time.
I'm angry about *that*, for damn sure. But not because of the symbolism.
And I find it very alarming that some people apparently aren't capable of distinguishing the symbol from the referent, or distinguishing a symbolic act from a real act with real consequences. Did you really intend to imply that *symbolic representations* were the only things that could be worth preserving? Not real entities, or principles? That's not just living in a delusion, but exalting it above reality!
Destroying a flag someone else owns is vandalism - nobody's arguing that. But destroying your own flag is making a statement, and to criminalize statements is un-American in the deepest possible way.
I say we encourge our Senators and Congress persons to pass both amendments fast so that we may get them out of the way in order to focus on passing really important amendments. Our first priority should be to repeal amendments 1, 4, 8, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 22. We then could dream up additional amendments to pass such as deporting or jailing all immigrants, legal or not, or how about making Christianity the official religion of the land and the right to jail and torture non believers. I am sure Bill Frist and President Bush will welcome your ideas for other amendments to pass. How about an amendment to repeal the constitution itself? Maybe we should have a contest such as american idol to dream up more amendments to satisfy the Christianists.
ReplyDeleteOur Country is in a very sad state. I am losing more faith every day.