So Much News, So Little Time And More Ire Than I Care To Discuss

That's the situation at the Mi Casa today and with the State of the Union being what it is the levels of my ire shall see no abatement in the near future. Thankfully, I was delayed enough today by the hail storms that battered my SUV that I managed to regain some semblance of cool.

It is news days like today that serve to reinforce my considered opinion that there is absolutely no chance in Hades that government can ever be reformed, made small, returned to Constitutional limits or just remade into something resembling a sane institution. Not gonna happen. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

Once again the spectre of an anti-Gay Marriage Amendment has managed to rear its squamous, slimy and authoritarian head from the sewers that are the Halls of Congress. This time, tho it looks to be slithering its way to the floor for a debate and a vote. The fact that this subject even came out of committee points up the deranged and dangerous nature of politics. That a proposed Constitutional Amendment which would serve to strip rights from people in this country could even be thought worthy of debate on the floor points up the mental derangement of the Republicans and their partners in crime the Democrats.

One good thing the committee considering this did manage to bring to light was the admission by Arlen Specter (Republicrat-PA) that neither he, nor Russ Feingold (Socialisticrat-Wis.) were keeping to their oaths of office and had no intentions of protecting rights or the Constitution.

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

At last! Some form of honesty from these cretins! It's been painfully obvious to some of us, that Arlen, Russ and all their buddies have done nothing except crap on the Constitution for decades. At least now we have an admission. Too bad it holds no power with their constituencies who seem to care naught for anything but sending these people back to mis-serve them. That Red and Blue Kool Aid is some strong shiznit.

So, they've let this monstrosity out of committee, in order to pander to their moronic core core constituency of so-called Values Voters. They've even admitted that it stands no chance of passage once it's on the floor for debate and still they allow it out of committee. Too flippin' bad these idiots don't remember that the same damned thing was said about the 16th Amendment and look where we are now with that, now. If this is allowed to pass and gets out to the ballot box where anyone lacking two brain cells to rub together can vote on it, then we will have removed the civil rights from an entire segment of our populace.

The issue, which I have covered before manages to federalize marriage once and for all. By allowing politicians to set a definition in this manner the Moral Majority Values Voters are setting themselves up for a massive incursion by the State. But, it's quite possible that this is exactly what these theocrat wannabees are looking for. Blur the church state line enough and the door to a new American Theocracy flies open. When you have people like Pat Robertson and his cultists followers in favour of something like this you had better think long and hard, (or not...long and hard thinking might be a sin).

Marriage is a civil right, regardless of what the anti-gay segment of the populace thinks. Civil rights flow from the state and work on the premise of "equal before the law". This amendment is designed to create a group of people who are not equal before the law. A class of people who are being told by the federal government, (and those who are supposedly their fellow Americans) that the laws of their civic mean nothing in the eyes of the masses who are not part of their state. This is precisely why the Federal government and those who run it need to be reined in and it is precisely why the Founders crafted a document that established the rights of the states as supreme over those of the central government. Of course that was then and this is now and the Hamiltonian and Lincolnian nightmare rules supreme.

Marriage is also a universal right. Everyone is entitled marry, if they manage to find someone willing to marry. They may stand in front of their community and announce their marriage, look each other in the eyes and take one another for their spouse (as many of my non-European ancestors no doubt did) or they may find a priest or priestess of the religion of their choosing to bless their union. Said religious person may choose to marry the couple (trio, group, etc) or not, depending on their personal wishes. That's freedom of choice. Those who attempt to base their arguments on the "Sanctity" card are truly delusional. Look at how many of your "holy men" and politicians have divorced. And don't even get me started on those of us who married in front of a judge.

Allowing any "marriage amendment" to be added to the Constitution is dangerous in the extreme. Today people define a "man and a woman" based solely on their biological sex and their sexual preference...in this case a preference for heterosexuality. That could change in a heartbeat given the many and varied changes wreaked by politicians in the past. Remember the "assault weapons" ban? Like the 16th Amendment (which was crafted to tax only the "wealthy") the potential for abuse is huge. The power to regulate is the power to destroy and this abomination has more power than any WMD. You think you know what a "man or a woman" is today. That definition can be changed by legislative fiat by the stroke of a pen. Supporters rely on the "kindness of strangers" and the myth of inherent goodness of politicians which is a dangerous belief system, given the facts.

20 years from now a "man" may be defined as someone of a select race or religion, perhaps as someone meeting certain federal criteria. Perhaps a "woman" is defined by how many times she has had to please a politician or her religious leader or maybe her "purity". What supporters of any Amendment which removes freedom from one group of people fail to realise is that this not only opens a can of worms it offers no protections to anyone, which is what the first 10 Amendments do. This strips rights away from people. If you allow this to happen to homosexuals then rest assured that you have set the precedent that will allow an Amendment to be applied to you, perhaps this very one. If ever there were a time to stand up and just say no, this is it.


Technorati Tags:
Politics, Gay Marriage, Libertarian, Gay Rights
Civil Rights, Constitution, Values Voters, Congress

(special thanks to the idiots at Insight for being down all evening. Way to go morons!)