10.19.2005

Re: Re: American Daily Feedback

Just about the entire legal community has endorsed her legal qualifications, across the aisle. She has 30 years of real world experience with an impeccable record according to everyone who has ever worked with, for or around her. She certainly has the proper education. So what is your real objection?

My real objection is: she is not qualified. Compare Roberts and Miers resumes. Big difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts_Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers


These alternatives do exist, we simply must insist upon them and not fall into the same ideology game employed by most people involved in the process.

How? I would suggest the process is broken via money.

This issue has nothing to do with "civil rights". The same laws and definitions that apply to me as a heterosexual, apply to every homosexual. The same requirements for obtaining a marriage license applied to members of the gay community, also apply to members of the heterosexual community. As you know, this is a financial benefits debate, not a civil rights debate. Over the years, laws, rules and programs have been designed to promote a traditional family unit, or at least, not penalize the traditional family unit. Members of the gay community seek to tap into those financial benefits, even though they were never designed for them. Since they can't do it any other way, they call it a "civil right" to have access to those programs and benefits. But reality is, I am no more "qualified" to apply for funding designed to help the black community that they are for programs designed to support the traditional family unit. I can't get a job under "affirmative action" programs because they were never designed for me. Same goes for homosexuals seeking access to funds not designed for them...

The simple truth is, they don't seek equality, they have that and it isn't what they desire. They seek special treatment for their special circumstances... Which is why this has nothing to do with civil rights.

Why shouldn't a "couple" not be entitled to same legal protections as other "couples"? Should not gay couples have family insurance? Should not gay couples have spousal rights? Should not gay couples be able to have families? Should not both individuals of a gay couple have parental rights? It is discrimination. The discrimination has many different rationales, one is financial, insurance companies, government don't want to deliver services and save dollars, another is religious reasons, homosexuality is a sin in their eyes, lastly is plain bigotry, some people are just homophobes.

Do you believe in affirmative action?

The simple truth is, they want the same rights as everyone else. Equal rights.

2 Comments:

Blogger Mark H. Foxwell said...

Re marriage law--why should the state get into the private business of families at all?
Why should we have _legal_ marriage? Why should it matter on my tax return if I am married or not? To my insurer? To an adoption agency?

These are rhetorical questions, which have answers--clearly, much of what human beings choose to do with their lives--indeed, much of what it is _necessary_ someone or other had better choose to do if we are to sustain ourselves as a species and civilization--are _economic_ in nature, having to do with production and reproduction. Bottom line on legal marriage, even before we started shaping tax policy etc around it, is that it decides _property relations_--who gets the land, who gets the house, who gets custody of the kids if one party dies or if they separate.

Realizing that, it becomes clear that there is no good reason for marriage to be restricted to heterosexual couples. It is true that they might reproduce on their own--but they might not too. That they can have children is not the point; that they have the _resources_ that are involved in possibly raising children, or otherwise participating as adults in the community, is the point. And so we realize gay or lesbian couples can do all this too.

The restriction of marriage rights to heterosexual couples then is not about affirmative action for families; it is about punishing queer people for their preference. It all depends then on whether society has any rational reasons for doing that. I say, no ethical reasons exist. To be sure, it is "rational" to set up queer people as scapegoats and outcasts, along with other "Others" so branded, if the society is basically terroristic in its set-up--if it relies on fear of punishment and on competitive struggles for privilege. Since that is the sort of society ours evolved from it is not surprising that we historically have this notion that marriage is for hetersexuals only.

But if we want to keep the institution, we need to either open it up on a free basis to all people prepared to commit to the terms, which have no good reason to include opposite sex in the list, or else perhaps we should simply abolish all legal marriage and let people choose their partners and commit to them as they see mutally fit, and let tax policy and property rules and all that turn on individual rights and contracts entered freely into by any parties by mutal consent.

All those arguing for "protection" of strictly heterosexual marriage are really arguing either for a religious mandate, or for the usefullness of oppressive institutions in maintaining an oppressive society. They do a great job of not facing these facts of course.

7:11 AM  
Blogger BigBuddhaPuppy said...

I concur...nicely put...

9:45 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home