The Battle Continues...
I have stated my views numerous times on this blog on this subject and they have not changed. I believe the ruling yesterday by the Supreme Court was not so much a true question on the civil liberty aspects of gay marriage as much as it was a ruling against the argument that Proposition 8 revised the California Constitution as opposed to just amending it. Opponents of Proposition 8 unsuccessfully argued that the voter initiative went beyond a constitutional amendment and represented a revision to the state constitution. The California Supreme Court did not agree. Only one Justice dissented: Justice Moreno in his lone dissenting opinion stated, "[T]he aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution."
I agree with him 100%. Also, the very notion of voters being able to vote on initiatives which at the very heart attempt to limit or restrict basic rights and freedoms of specific groups of people is not only insulting, but it is morally wrong. It is especially insensitive when only the narrowest margins of a majority are then allowed to impose their restrictions based on such a majority vote thus establishing a simple majority tyranny. At the absolute minimum, any such votes whereby specific rights and freedoms are at risk, there should be required a super majority vote, that is more than just a simple majority, in order for any such restrictions be allowed, (i.e. 2/3 minimum required). The idea of a super majority vote is very common in all types of voting processes to prevent a simple majority tyranny by only very slight margins. Even still, I personally believe it is wrong to ever apply a majority vote model when any type of restrictions of civil liberties are at stake for any group. No majority should ever be allowed to trample on or deny the rights of a minority...ever.
So, as the battle continues and opponents prepare to go to the ballot box again in early 2010, two high profile lawyers just filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of two gay men and two gay women in California and many believe this will go straight to the US Supreme Court. Lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies have joined forces and are planning on taking this argument ultimately to the US Supreme Court, in spite of the ACLU and some other LGBT Organizations objecting saying that such a move is premature. Theodore Olson was quoted as saying at a news conference in Los Angeles :
"There will be many people who will think this is not the time to go to federal. Both David and I have studied the court for more years than probably either one of us would like to admit. We think we know what we are doing." David Boies agreed: "Reasonable minds can differ, but when you have people being denied civil rights today, I think it is impossible as lawyers and as an American to say 'No, you have to wait, now is not the right time.' I think if we had done that in prior civil rights battles, we would not be where we are."
The two lawyers became household names during the 2000 Presidential Elections when Theodore Olson represented the Bush campaign and David Boies represented the Al Gore campaign to argue before the Supreme Court about the election results. The two have now joined forces and are of the same mind on the matter regarding same sex marriage. It is unfortunate that such actions have to be taken in order to secure the rights of the minority, but that has always been the case through out history and we never seem to learn our lessons very well. I still maintain that nobody on the opposing side has adequately been able to demonstrate in any believable fashion how allowing the LGBT community to enjoy the legal and civil liberties offered by marriage will result in any harm or injustice to anyone else. Quite simply put, it does not. It is only an argument based on religious views and principles and nothing else. Such arguments may not be allowed to be the reason to restrict civil rights and freedoms for any group of people in this country.
Get Your Vote On
Do you love the articles on this blog? Do you hate them? Could you really care less either way? Well, you can now vote your approval or disapproval on each article posted. I've added a new star rating system to all existing articles in the TD3k Speaks archives. All new articles will feature the ranking system as well. "Why" you ask? "Why not" is my rhetorical answer. Seriously, everyone loves to give an opinion, but some of us are just too lazy to actually type a comment. And then there are some of us who prefer to remain anonymous but still like to register a vote of support or a mark of rejection. This system covers both bases - anonymous and effortless. Stars are at the bottom left of each article and are rather unnoticeable until someone leaves a vote. The rating system automatically records each vote and shows the resultant average in stars and the number of votes left. So please, mark your votes today! If you want to add ratings to your blog, go download the free code from the guys over at JS-Kit and have fun.
The Holy War
Critics often accused the Bush administration of waging a crusade against Iraq. Turns out those critics may have been correct, according to a profile of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in GQ this month.
In what appears to be a callous effort by Rumsfeld to cater to President George W. Bush's religious fervor, the fiery Pentagon leader sent the president daily briefings on the war's progress headlined Worldwide Intelligence Update, which often included Bible passages on the cover paired with striking images.
In one report, a brilliant orange sun beams down on a U.S. tank in the desert beneath a passage from the Book of Ephesians reading, "Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."
Rumsfeld "was cynically playing the religious angle to seduce and manipulate a president who frequently quoted the Bible," said liberal commentator Frank Rich in the New York Times in response to the story. "But the secretary’s actions were not just oily; he was also taking a risk with national security. If these official daily collages of Crusade-like messaging and war imagery had been leaked, they would have reinforced the Muslim world’s apocalyptic fear that America was waging a religious war."
To read the full article (in GQ) by Robert Draper, click here.
As additional details emerge about what happened behind the closed doors of the Bush administration, it causes one to question the real mindset of these politicians. Was this type of religious overtones in top secret reports just for the the religious edification of the President, or was there truly a belief by those at the top that we were waging a holy war and that God was on our side? Possibly both, but regardless of their personal beliefs, to officially mix these two together in the form of an official governmental document only speaks to the complete and utter disregard to the fallout that could result if and when it was ever made public. It undoubtedly sends a confusing message that this administration may have believed it's justification for waging war in Iraq was religious in nature; even though President Bush said that it wasn't. Or, was it?
State Constitution Preambles
I came across a somewhat interesting e-mail the other day that focused on the content of the separate states constitutional preambles. The body of the message goes on to list all fifty states opening lines from their preambles and the dates of ratification ranging from 1776 through 1959. The e-mail makes the assertion that all fifty of the US states constitutions’ preambles make reference to either ‘God’, the “Supreme Ruler/Being’, ‘Divine Guidance’, or ‘Creator’ and that because of this then therefore the ACLU and the “out-of-control federal courts just maybe wrong”.
Of course we all know that e-mail messages such as this one are in wide circulation on the internet and many of them are nothing more than someone’s subjective opinion on any given subject. Quite often, snippets of facts and documentation are included to give a sense of authority and worthiness to the argument being proffered. This e-mail in question is no different. It seems to me that the purpose of this message is to assert the notion that since all of the state constitutions openly acknowledge God in their preambles that it is a good thing to interject religious ideals into the realm of government. While it is true that all fifty of the US states do make mention of God or a Supreme Being, or Divine Guidance in each of their respective preambles, I think it is important to point out a few other facts that are equally, if not more, relevant.
To begin with, a preamble is nothing more than an introductory statement that usually states the intent of the authors and the document. All state preambles, as well as the US constitution preamble, are very limited in scope and really carry no legal significance. In other words, they are typically never used as proofs of arguments in court cases since they are only introductory statements and make no claim to power of authority for governance.
Secondly, the e-mail fails to note or acknowledge the fact that all fifty of the state constitutions are subject to and must conform with the precepts and articles of the US constitution. If there is anything in the state constitutions that violates the US constitution then it could effectively be rendered without legal merit in a federal court of law. Also, it fails to note that there is no mention of ‘God’ or anything of the divine anywhere in the US constitution. This does not imply that the men who penned the US constitution were ‘godless’, for we know that many of them were indeed religious. It only further illustrates the concept of the importance of not mixing religious ideologies with governmental authority. I did not examine all fifty states constitutions, but I will cite the Texas constitution as an example since I am more familiar with it. In Article 4 of the Texas constitution it states that no religious test will ever be administered as a requirement for anyone to hold office in the state of Texas with the exception that the candidate must at least acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. This clause in the Texas constitution has never been upheld or applied in modern times as it is in direct conflict with the establishment clause of the first amendment and Article 6 of the US constitution. State courts do not attempt to enforce article 4, but it is interesting to point out that it is highly doubtful if anyone in the state of Texas has ever been elected to public office who did not profess a belief or a faith in God. That is a different topic of discussion, but it does illustrate the over-importance and emphasis that some people in a given electorate may place on religion. A person’s religious views have nothing whatsoever to do with their ability or their qualifications to hold office in a seat of government.
And finally, the question must be asked “what” exactly is the ACLU and the federal courts wrong about? The statement that “they may be wrong” is broad and unspecific. I would guess that the charge is aimed at the idea that the ACLU and the federal courts are interested in removing all mention of God out of government and in so doing are violating the religious freedoms of people who are religious. This of course is a tired, old argument without any merit whatsoever as long as the ACLU and the federal courts do not attempt to regulate and control the teachings and functions of the individual churches. I am quite certain that they are not doing that at all but are instead limiting their scope to governmental institutions. It is important to remember that governments are established by men for the governance of the secular and legal affairs of men. Our state and federal governments are thankfully not in the business of administering and ruling on divine laws within our court systems. By government remaining neutral in the field of religious affiliations and sectarian beliefs, the government assures without bias an even playing field for peoples of all faiths and all religions to receive fair and equitable treatment by the government in matters of secular law. It is only when people try to insert their own sectarian religious ideals into government that religious freedoms are truly jeopardized and that is what the ACLU and the federal courts are attempting to stop.
Have You Seen This Loon?
