Friday, March 10, 2006
Kudos to Charlie Sykes for starting the discussion on the we-hate-gays amendment.
Kudos to Charlie Sykes for starting the discussion on the we-hate-gays amendment. I was hoping that someone else on the Lincoln-Roosevelt-Reagan team would step up to question the strategy and reasoning behind the amendment to ban civil unions. Dad29, Glenn Grothman and others are already screaming bloody murder about the usually worshipped Mr. Sykes. He's raising uncomfortable questions, and these guys really don't like to be challenged. After all, when you know yourself to be both right and righteous it is rather an affront to have one of your heroes question your God-given wisdom.
It was enlightening today to hear Glenn Grothman's "discussion" with Sykes where he explained that the real reason behind the amendment was that we don't want to signal approval of this lifestyle. I move from sad to furious when I hear this kind of, dare I say, bigotry? He expressed in his words and tone a disgust and hatred towards homosexuals and their lifestyle. Setting aside the provocative issue of whether Glenn's being a bit Roy Cohnish here, please think about what it is that he and the amendment backers really mean. Glenn is someone who tells it like it is, and he's telling gay people that there is something wrong with them and they do not deserve the equal protections of our society. Hutu's and Tutsi's anyone?
I try to steer away from Sykes sycophancy, because there is way too much of that going around the blogosphere. But his column on this issue is what separates him from the rest. He doesn't parrot the party line, he uses his mind and his principles to honestly analyze the issues of the day. While I don't always agree with him, I can always respect where he's coming from -- because it's based on a fundamental integrity and intelligence. We're lucky to have him on our very small stage, some day Roger Ailes will stumble on WTMJ and Charlie will ascend to a much higher level.
This amendment isn't about gay marriage, it's about condemning people for who they are and permanently excluding them from the club of good people in society. After all, Grothman sniffs, we can't endorse what these people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. IT'S NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS, GLENN! How dare you discriminate against my friends, or use your power as a legislator to try and hurt them. It's evil, in a way that Himmler could understand. Dad29 may consider that inflammatory, but good people cannot afford to stay silent when faced with this concentration camp mentality. If they're not quite human, what else would Glenn Grothman and Ralph Ovadal like to deny them. The pursuit of happiness? Liberty? Life?
I am convinced that the true conservative or libertarian will recoil from the antediluvian ramblings of Grothman or Dad29. As this discussion continues, on which side will you come down? For hatred and discrimination or for equal rights and protections? Are we the Republican Party or the Know-Nothings? Do we represent freedom and liberty or exclusion and prejudice? Please join in the discussion and think about the issues raised on both sides of the issue. Dad29 will follow the dogma he learned in his Wednesday night CCC class 35 years ago, will your thinking be equally hidebound?
Again, extending equal protection of the law to my gay neighbors will do nothing to threaten real marriage or the dark place in Glenn Grothman's head. It simply doesn't hurt any of you to leave people alone to live their lives as they wish. Don't be such a bunch of pricks. These are real people and real families that you're messing with. And Charlie Sykes will never be dumb enough to fall for your hateful line of reasoning.
"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niemoeller
Comments:
<< Home
Now THERE'S a post which uses intellectually stimulating argumentation, elegant reasoning, and all that other stuff Sykes called for.
Just like you, I can't agree with Sykes all the time. He misunderstands the limits of positive law in the instant case, and he is not particularly good on trade issues, either.
But hey! have it your way...screech and scratch your way through the debate...
Just like you, I can't agree with Sykes all the time. He misunderstands the limits of positive law in the instant case, and he is not particularly good on trade issues, either.
But hey! have it your way...screech and scratch your way through the debate...
That's right, me and Pastor Niemoeller screaming and scratching. By the way, how do you feel about protestants? I have strong opinions and so do you. I'll keep reading yours for now to try and understand, and you can keep reading mine if you care to. But my comments aren't really directed at you or Ralph Ovadahl. They're directed at the non-extremist decent people of Wisconsin. I have no doubt you are decent as well, but we are not going to agree about this issue. My hope is that regular people will read us both.
Respectfully,
RM
Respectfully,
RM
I'll bet Roger Ailes has looked and passed on Charlie precisely because he cannot speak good "parrot." That's probably also the reason fellow Milwaukee talker Mark Belling periodically pinch hits for El Rushbo while the big guy is off on a hillbilly heroin run ("just kidding, just kidding, folks" as Mr. Half My Brain Tied Behind My Back would say).
TC: there's no "blurring" between church and state here. It is NOT a "religious" belief that marriage is between man and woman. This has to do with nature.
Even Jefferson, a skeptic at best, and NO lover of religion, allowed for 'nature and nature's God.'
That is to say, Jefferson understood that there is such a thing as natural law. It's also likely that his "God" was a 'watchmaker' God--unlike the Judaeo-Christian God.
But that's beside the point. Jefferson's work in the Consitution did not address "natural law" precisely because the framers knew that they did not have the authority (etymology is important here) to screw around with it.
Positive law may reflect natural law--but it cannot rescind it.
As to Mike F's argument: Sykes refuted it himself, acknowledging that a bunch of blackrobed bozos may well change "the law" at any time.
Based on Screamin'Shirley's track record so far, it's a safe bet she would invalidate a "law" on this topic--in a heartbeat.
Even Jefferson, a skeptic at best, and NO lover of religion, allowed for 'nature and nature's God.'
That is to say, Jefferson understood that there is such a thing as natural law. It's also likely that his "God" was a 'watchmaker' God--unlike the Judaeo-Christian God.
But that's beside the point. Jefferson's work in the Consitution did not address "natural law" precisely because the framers knew that they did not have the authority (etymology is important here) to screw around with it.
Positive law may reflect natural law--but it cannot rescind it.
As to Mike F's argument: Sykes refuted it himself, acknowledging that a bunch of blackrobed bozos may well change "the law" at any time.
Based on Screamin'Shirley's track record so far, it's a safe bet she would invalidate a "law" on this topic--in a heartbeat.
Dad29: You don't understand law very well, do you? Blackrobed bozos changing "the law", or the using the correct GOP frame of "activist judges" is totally incorrect. So-called conservative judges change the law 67% of the time, where so-called liberal judges change the law less than 40% of the time.
Just because a court in Mass. decided that the law should be interpreted to allow civil marriage to same-sex couples, doesn't mean they changed the law, they only did the same thing the conservative judges did when they felt that sodomy laws should be eliminated (because the government doesn't belong in anyone's bedroom).
Post a Comment
Just because a court in Mass. decided that the law should be interpreted to allow civil marriage to same-sex couples, doesn't mean they changed the law, they only did the same thing the conservative judges did when they felt that sodomy laws should be eliminated (because the government doesn't belong in anyone's bedroom).
<< Home
