Hash and Rehash

Some additional thoughts regarding constitutional amendments against same sex unions.

Gays are not, for the most part exceptional people. They are, by pretty much any measure, similar to most people excepting one aspect: Their sexual orientation. Otherwise, lesbians and gays go to school, work at jobs, own property, are active in their communities, are church members, vote, pay their bills, AND pay taxes. Just like most everybody else. Yet they are faced with the prospect of being singled out and their rights curtailed by the same government to which they pay those taxes, a government which should be affording them as citizens the same rights and protections to which other citizens are entitled.

Our system is based on the premise of majority rule, you may say. That is true. But that stops short of the rest of that thought which states, "but protecting the rights of the minority." In this case the minority is being wholly ignored. Their lives are being in effect disenfranchised simply because one group of people disapproves of the lifestyle of another.

Enacting such laws, making them a part of various state or the federal constitution is a step back into far less enlightened times. It conjures memories of "Jim Crow," and "separate but equal," even prohibition. All such former laws and/or amendments proved to be prejudicial, promulgating racism or, as in the case of prohibition, unenforcable. All required untold time, effort, money and other resources to repeal. All such waste could have been avoided had people simply been honest, fair, and used even a modicum of common sense.

The assumption that same sex unions are immoral or "an abomination" is based solely on biblical scripture. It never occurs to true believers that the bible could, in fact be wrong, or that people who don't adhere to scripture as others do should not be forced to do so by law. In any case, it should not, in this day and age, or any day and age for that matter, be the business of government to bully its way into our relationships or our bedrooms. I've been reminded that government has done so in the past, that there is precident. That doesn't make it right, though does it? Up until fairly recently many states still carried laws on their books outlawing inter-racial marriage. As far as I know, most of those laws are either history, or if still in print, are no longer enforced (at least I would hope not.)

On another note:

Iraq. We are faced with an untenable situation there. Bush still believes that we can, and that we are, winning in Iraq. I often wonder if he is actually following the same war that the rest of us are. The Dems are pushing to either force the adoption of a withdrawal date, or to cut military funding for Iraq altogether. Reps claim that to cut off funds would leave our troops high and dry, which is nonsense. A recent Doonesbury strip made note that cutting off funding would not have the effect of leaving American soldiers stranded in Iraq fending for themselves. It would simply mean that their mission would necessarily end, and they would be brought home and out of harm's way. The Reps would have you believe otherwise.

The majority of Americans want our troops brought home. Only a relative few die hards believe there is anything yet to be gained by our continued military presence in Iraq. There is a conundrum, though. It is likely true that, if our military suddenly just pulled up their pants and came home, utter chaos would likely ensue. Of course it can be said that that is what's going on now. I imagine it could get a lot worse.

We also have Bush and his posse telling the Iraqis that they must begin to step in and take the reigns; that they must start taking responsibility for their own welfare. But remember, we were the provocateurs. We were the proverbial bull in the china shop.

Let's say the older brother goes into his younger brother's room and proceeds to make a huge mess, pulling out toys all over the floor, knocking over furniture, spilling drinks and food on the carpet, and then as he walks out turns and tells his younger sibling that he'd better get all the mess cleaned up, that it's his room,and therefore, his responsibility.

All of this and more simply screams at the idiocy of our ever having entered Iraq in the first place. It is the Iraq invasion and war which I believe should get GW impeached. Of course I know it will never happen. The votes just aren't there. That didn't stop the Reps from impeaching Clinton, though did it ?

While I certainly don't condone Clinton's Oval Office shenanigans, I still don't believe that his actions met the criteria for impeachment. But, no matter. Here again, we spent how many millions of dollars, how much time, man hours, effort and resources in the failed effort to force Willy out of the White House? Had a political leader been caught in a similar situation in most European countries, it would have been an embarrassment, there would have been a lot of snickering, the tabloids would have had a field day for a time, but it would likely have been quickly forgotten. Not here. We simply won't let go of our puritanical roots. We must punish such transgressions to the hilt, hold guilty feet to the fire.

Bush, on the other hand, got us into a pre-emptive war for crap sake! He is ultimately responsible for the deaths of over 3000 American men and women and untold Iraqis among others, and all under false pretenses. If that doesn't meet a standard for impeachment, I don't know what does. Misleading the public and being totally inept should be cause for removal from office, shouldn't it?

TLS