It's been almost a month since my first post on this blog. An awful long time, I've been told. It would be a lot easier for me to keep this blog up to speed if I had Internet access in my apartment but unfortunately that's going to have to wait until I find another job that will hopefully pay more than my last one.
Anyway, I would like to start this blog off by tendering my sincerest apologies to the Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, though I doubt they'll ever read this. I wrote in my last post that the Duggars should be ashamed of themselves if they voted in favor of banning same-sex marriage in their home state of Arkansas, knowing full well they would never stand for it if people tried to stop them from having more children. That may be hypocritical of them but they have the right to be wrong as gay columnist Charles Bouley wrote, according to George Will in today's column.
The main focus of Will's column is an alleged move by same-sex marriage supporters demanding to know the names and addresses of people who oppose their goal. Bouley, Will wrote, reminds gay activists that Barack Obama has stated marriage should be between a man and a woman only, yet many of them voted for him in the last election. Will concludes his column by saying it is time to speak up about thuggish liberalism. I agree with him by I feel it is also well past time time to talk about what I discussed in my first post: politics and religion.
The Obama Administration has gotten a whole lot of criticism these past few months regarding its economic policies and I agree with pretty much everything that has been said about that. However, I feel as though Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and everybody else at Fox News are forgetting something, and that is one of the reasons why people put Obama in power is that he portrayed himself as less extreme on social issues like abortion and gay rights than his predecessor George W. Bush.
If the conservative movement is to survive, it needs to adopt a more moderate stance on social issues than it has in recent years. Nobody is more opposed to judges who legislate from the bench than I am but I'll say it again: people should not be allowed to determine public policy based on whatever beliefs they might have. They have the right to be wrong as Charles Bouley said, but they do not have the right to impose their beliefs on to others.
If all those people involved in the 9-12 project wish to curb the out-of-control spending by those currently in power, they need to abandon social conservatism cold turkey and keep religion firmly out of public policy.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
My First .02: Politics and Religion
Five months ago I parted ways with a nonprofit group whom I served for the past three years as editor of their monthly newspaper. They informed me back in February that they had to let me go due to the state of our economy. Since then I have been desperately searching for another job while relying on unemployment benefits to pay the bills, although I've also had to dip into my savings a couple times in order to do that. I may have to dip into my savings again later this month now that I'm paying for my own health coverage as well.
Anyway, I have been thinking about starting a blog for sometime now in order to share my thoughts about the current politico-economic situation, though I'm hardly an expert in that area. My username BTW is inspired partly by the movie Reservoir Dogs but mostly by the designation of our country into red states and blue states every four years. I am neither red nor blue but rather something in between, hence the name Mr. Purple.
I started watching the Glenn Beck Program on Fox about two months ago and I certainly agree with a lot of what he says. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to join the 9/12 Project and help make this country whole again. Before I do anything, however, I feel it necessary to address the one major area where I disagree with Beck and the rest of the conservative movement: religion.
Now I got no problem with people having beliefs. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the fact that most Americans see fit to integrate their beliefs with public policy, which is wrong. The last time I checked 50-60% of the U.S. has voted to amend their state constitution so that it reads marriage shall be limited to one man, one woman. I was very much against gay marriage when Massachusetts became the first state where gay marriage came to fruition (via judicial fiat of course). Although I much prefer to see it legalized through elected officials as was the case in Vermont, I've begun to realize that banning gay marriage because the majority don't like it is not only unjust; it's unconstitutional. I recall Matt Foreman, the Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, making a bold statement after eleven states (two of which went to John Kerry in the presidental election at the time): "We'll win some states, we'll lose some states. But eventually the Supreme Court is going to look at this and not give a damn what's in the state constitution."
Can the Supreme Court really overturn all state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage as Mr. Foreman suggests? I'm hardly an expert on constitutional matters but all signs tell me yes they can. Of course they could never overturn a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marraige if one existed. The only way to fix that would be to pass another amendment repealing it as was the case with Prohibition. While I certainly agree that other matters like the abolition of the death penalty should be left to the amending process as was the case with slavery, I feel it is incumbent upon the courts to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority as gay marriage advocates argue.
One of the many states with a ban on gay marriage is Arkansas, which is of course home to the Duggar family. I assume the parents, Jim Bob and Michelle, were among the majority that voted to impose the ban. They have made their religious views well known through their family website. If they did vote in favor of the ban, they should be ashamed of themselves, knowing full well they would never stand for it if people tried to stop them from having more children.
My point is people should not be allowed to determine public policy based on whatever beliefs they might have, especially since not everybody shares the same beliefs. I'll say it again. I got no problem with people having beliefs, I just don't like it when they try to impose their beliefs on others.
And that is my first .02
Anyway, I have been thinking about starting a blog for sometime now in order to share my thoughts about the current politico-economic situation, though I'm hardly an expert in that area. My username BTW is inspired partly by the movie Reservoir Dogs but mostly by the designation of our country into red states and blue states every four years. I am neither red nor blue but rather something in between, hence the name Mr. Purple.
I started watching the Glenn Beck Program on Fox about two months ago and I certainly agree with a lot of what he says. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to join the 9/12 Project and help make this country whole again. Before I do anything, however, I feel it necessary to address the one major area where I disagree with Beck and the rest of the conservative movement: religion.
Now I got no problem with people having beliefs. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the fact that most Americans see fit to integrate their beliefs with public policy, which is wrong. The last time I checked 50-60% of the U.S. has voted to amend their state constitution so that it reads marriage shall be limited to one man, one woman. I was very much against gay marriage when Massachusetts became the first state where gay marriage came to fruition (via judicial fiat of course). Although I much prefer to see it legalized through elected officials as was the case in Vermont, I've begun to realize that banning gay marriage because the majority don't like it is not only unjust; it's unconstitutional. I recall Matt Foreman, the Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, making a bold statement after eleven states (two of which went to John Kerry in the presidental election at the time): "We'll win some states, we'll lose some states. But eventually the Supreme Court is going to look at this and not give a damn what's in the state constitution."
Can the Supreme Court really overturn all state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage as Mr. Foreman suggests? I'm hardly an expert on constitutional matters but all signs tell me yes they can. Of course they could never overturn a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marraige if one existed. The only way to fix that would be to pass another amendment repealing it as was the case with Prohibition. While I certainly agree that other matters like the abolition of the death penalty should be left to the amending process as was the case with slavery, I feel it is incumbent upon the courts to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority as gay marriage advocates argue.
One of the many states with a ban on gay marriage is Arkansas, which is of course home to the Duggar family. I assume the parents, Jim Bob and Michelle, were among the majority that voted to impose the ban. They have made their religious views well known through their family website. If they did vote in favor of the ban, they should be ashamed of themselves, knowing full well they would never stand for it if people tried to stop them from having more children.
My point is people should not be allowed to determine public policy based on whatever beliefs they might have, especially since not everybody shares the same beliefs. I'll say it again. I got no problem with people having beliefs, I just don't like it when they try to impose their beliefs on others.
And that is my first .02
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)