Mythical Creature

More musings from a conservative.

Unicorn, dragon, and.... Bush supporter?

It's true, that fabled creature still does exist in the world but indeed he is a rare creature these days. Once he was plentiful, and stood proud among the creatures of the political kingdom.

Those times are gone now, his enemies stalk the animal kingdom and he is force to hide for his own safety. Still though, he senses a change in the air and perhaps that is a good thing.

Indeed I am that poor creature, once there were many of us but now we've become virtual political pariahs. It's ok though, I accept my current lot.

For you see I do still support the President, although there are several issues which we disagree on. I do believe that given the available choices, he is the man I prefer to have in the White House.

Really doesn't say much for my options, but I digress.

Not in a very surprising move, both parties are promising a new era of bi-partisanship and working together. Of course the average American believes this is complete and utter stupidity.

It's been said before, and broken just as quickly.

Still the game of politics must be played, the foundation for later accusations that the other side is the reason nothing is getting done must be firmly established.

Many people who read my writing might believe me to believe one of those extreme right wing stalwarts who hate all liberals.

I must say I resent that, I am very moderate on some things and liberal on others. Like personally I don't care if gay marriage is allowed, as long as churches aren't compelled to perform these marriages I honestly wish anyone who finds love the best.

Life is short enough, and we should take joy where we find it.

Still the majority of the American public just doesn't want it to happen, evidence below.

19 states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage

43 states have statutes defining marriage to two persons of the opposite-sex.

Now this tells me the American public really doesn't feel that it's something it wants right now. Now honestly I believe that will change in time, but right now it's obvious the public draws the line.

So I accept the will of the people, and urge both sides to continue their advocacy of their respective beliefs. Democracy only fails when its citizens refuse to participate.

I do object though to any court trying to redefine the current accepted definition of marriage, the American people are quite capable of voting to ban or to unban this union.

The courts were never granted the power to legislate from the bench. I believe that is what the legislative branch was created to do.

Still I seem to be getting side tracked, Nancy Pelosi said.

Among the things she said she won't do, however, is cut funding for the Iraq war to send a message.
"Our troops are in harm's way, she said."They have been sent there, whether you agree with the policy or not -- and I certainly did not agree with the resolution to go to war."

I will post the link at the bottom of the page, and I honestly hope that the future speaker will fulfill this pledge.

While not agreeing with the reasons they are over there, we must as a people remember. Those are our troops, they protect and serve us.

The military doesn't simply choose to do actions of their own accord; they are given specific tasks by the elected civilian government of the United States.

So I wish you would all remember that, and as always feel free to comment. Nothing better then honest debate.

http://www.cnn.com/...

•  "Unicorn, dragon, and.... Bush supporter?"

  Some folks might call that delusions of grandeur.

  Just saying, and all.

  by luckydog on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:18:18 AM PDT

•  You seem to be under the misconception

  that the basic right of all people to be treated equally is something that is up to a majority vote.  It is not.  No one should be considered 3/5 of a person anymore.  Haven't we learned anything in 230 years?

  And by the way the whole "legislating from the bench" Republican talking point you are spouting is just wrong.  That's what courts do.  One of the primary functions of the Constitution and the Courts are to protect the minority from the majority rule.

  What if the majority of people voted that Iowans could not get married just like every other citizen?  I'll bet you would be happy to get the courts involved then wouldn't you?

  by bluerevolt on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 03:19:45 AM PDT

  •  bluerevolt, you are RIGHT ON!

    Wish I could recommend your comment over and over.

    Basic rights SHOULD NOT BE UP FOR A VOTE!!!!

    by Pandoras Box on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:15:04 AM PDT

  •  Indeed

    Your under the assumption that gay marriage is a basic and natural right. When marriage is a human creation, and thus subject to the wills of humans to define it.

    The American people have chosen at this time to reject the notion, personally I don't care either way.

    America faces many more problems then gay marriage, and I would prefer that my leaders should focus on them.

    As for the courts to protect the minority from the majority, does that mean forcing morals of judges on the general public?

    That is a very dangerous precedent.

    by OblivionsPuppet on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 09:05:00 AM PDT

    •  You miss my point

      Of course marriage is a human creation.  So is every other law or right we enjoy.  Free speech, free press, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, the right to trial.  All human creations.

      We have, as one of our basic tenets, the idea that "all men are created equal".  Everyone in this country is entitled to equal protection under the law, regardless of thier race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.  And I don't believe it is a "dangerous precedent" that part of the responsibility of judges is to make sure that laws are applied equally to all Americans.

      So apply the law regarding the "human creation" of marriage equally to every member of our society, or abolish it altogether as a government institution.
       

      by bluerevolt on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 03:46:28 PM PDT

•  please go ahead and tell me

  which one of Bush's policies you continue to support.  I'm just curious.

  My blog. Come visit.

  by hekebolos on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 03:28:49 AM PDT

•  by your logic

  in 1967, when the us spreme court struck down laws which prohibited inter-racial marriages, the majority of americans were not in favor of inter-racial marriages.  in fact, it was not until 1991 that more americans approved of inter-racial marriages than disapproved of them.   in 1948, when the california supreme court declared the california ban on inter-racial marriages unconstitutional, over 90% of americans were opposed to inter-racial marriages.  

  but according to you, since the presumptive tide of public opinion (as measured by states that have statutes/laws banning same-sex marriages) is against same sex marriages then these laws/statutes and these beliefs/strictures should be tolerated, left alone, not challenged since the opinion of the public is not supportive of this change.

  how does one defend a policy that denies two consenting adults the same access to the same state-sanctioned contract (marriage license) because they are both of the same gender while at the same time allowing two consenting adults access to the state-sanctioned contract (marriage license) because they are of two different genders?

  this issue, like that of inter-racial marriages and roe v. wade has been advanced in large measure by the courts because that is what the courts are there for.  the idea that courts are legislating from the bench is a coded way of stating one's unhappiness that the judicial branch is in fact executing its power/authority.  

  when the nixon administration found out about the roe v. wade decision, the phrase "activist judges" was thrown out, somehow to try to cripple the act of the supreme court.  the phrasing "activist judges" was a slur then as it is now.

  are you seriously suggesting that until, and not a moment before, we have a plurality of opinion one way or the other that no law, statute, practice or action should be ruled unconstitutional?  i mean, if more than 50% of the people believe one way, then that way should remain as the only way until such time that 51% believe otherwise?

  if that were the case, remember that alabama did not stike its state law banning inter-racial marriage until the year 2000, a full 33 years AFTER the US supreme court ruled in loving v. virginia, and a full 52 years after the california supreme court ruled the california law unconstitutional.

  when equal protection under the law is not equally guaranteed equally to all of our citizenry, it should not be tolerated, no matter how popular or supported the cause or population impacted is/are.

  _______________

  it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

  -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

  by dadanation on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 03:43:34 AM PDT

  •  great writing and exactly right!

    by Pandoras Box on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 04:17:19 AM PDT

  •  Agreed

    I will agree with you on some points, those laws were horrible and the fact it took so long for them to be changed is a true tragedy.

    Still your basing this "legislating from the bench" tolerance on the assumption that judges have the right to change accepted societies morals with a hammer of a gavel.

    What if one day a really insane judge decides to give sex offenders rights to young children, or perhaps decides that society is being unfair in it's judgment of such behavior?

    Do we as a society simply accept that?

    by OblivionsPuppet on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 09:08:37 AM PDT

    •  what if everyone ordered cheese blintzes

      "tolerance"?  "assumption that judges have the right"?

      please.

      "legislating from the bench" and "activist judges" are offensive coded phrases established by and embraced by those who do not like the fact that we have an independent judicial system within our three-part system of government (legislatve, executive and judicial) that often finds in decisions positions contrary to theirs. full stop.  

      funny thing about the roe v. wade court is that it was a nixon-appointed judge who tipped the court in the direction of its final decision.  talk about sore grapes. turning around to declare the court "activist jdges" after appointing the judges to the court is so baldly transparent.  had the nixonian-appointed judges ruled AGAINST roe v wade, we'd have had no hullaballoo from the nixon white house.

      one can not embrace the judicial system if it only will do so when the court's opinions agree with one's own opinion.

      what is amazing about our judicial branch/system is that if it does make unsound or unconstitutionally-substantiated decisions (which it has) is that it has a corrective mechanism already built-in to it.  some americans are no longer considered to be "3/5ths of a person," we no longer accept the preposterous notion of "separate but equal," contraception and access to it is now a reality for adults and even the horrible decision from "bowers v. hardwick" was repaired in "lawrence v. texas."  etc.

      cases make their way UP to the supreme court. the nine judges do not sit around and ponder what interests they all might share and which issues tickle their fancy and which they might just decide on deciding out of nothingness.

      CASES work their way through a judicial process. the court does look at merits of each potential case they may or may not hear, but this winnowing-down process is quite a different beast than what is presupposed in the "activist judges"/"legislating from the bench" codes.  the supreme court doesn't invent the issue, they respond to them. they don't "legislate," they rule based on constitutionality, etc.  

      as history is instructive, thankfully one brilliant outcome of the design of our three branches is that cases often make their way up the judicial system at a pace that is different/faster than these issues/cases play out in the public opinion world or the legislatures. and given the realities i cited regarding inter-racial marriages (and even integration), thankfully the court was not bound/weighed down by an unnecessary and selfish belief that the supreme court(s) can only rule and find with decisions that are at least harmonious with public opinion.  had that been the case, inter-racial marriages would only have been legalized by the supreme court 15 years ago.  mind you, one in fifteen marriages NOW is inter-racial, and this is after 39 years after the loving v. virginia decision.

      to suggest that willy-nilly an "insane judge" might intentionally violate the oath of the bench and rule in such a way as to find with no constitutional or legal precedent is just deflection.  "what if?" scenarios are a dime a dozen and often resort to a kind of "fear-inducing" code meant to paralyze discussion, not move it forward.

      to paraphrase a line from a great movie:
      "what if everyone walked into the same deli at the same time and ordered cheese blintzes? there'd be chaos.  but they don't."

      NB:  what amazes me is that, in recent memory, when we have seen the supreme court overstep its authority and rule in such a way that the legal/constitutional precedent is ignored/trampled we do not hear the cry of "activist judges" from the same camp which aggressively cry such when the supreme court rules contrary to their party's positions (lawrence v. texas, etc.).  yes, i am talking about the gore v. bush decision.  odd how when the court did act in such a way as to legislate from the bench with no basis for their finding that mr. bush did not go to the podium to decry their decision.  rather, he raised his right hand and took the oath of office.

      but we still have avenues of recourse to correct these mis-steps.  look at tuesday's election results.  corrective mechanisms are tedious, time-consuming and in an ideal world would be unnecessary. but in this world, they are essential. and so we had tuesday.

      _______________

      it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

      -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

      by dadanation on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:12:02 PM PDT