Wolves 3, Lambs 1. Notes from a second-class citizen.
Unamerican : adj., contrary to the principles which distinguish the United States of America from all other countries.
One of these uniquely American principles, embodied in the slogans "Don't Tread On Me" and "Live and let live," is that as long as your neighbor isn't violating someone's rights, what he does is none of your business, and CERTAINLY none of the government's business. And as I've previously noted, there IS no right not to have neighbors who call themselves husband and husband.
This morning I awoke with my status as a second-class citizen firmly entrenched in the Missouri Constitution.
I do not use the term "Unamerican" lightly, and unlike Teresa Heinz-Kerry, once I use the word, I stick by it and do not backpedal. This amendment is Unamerican. And those who voted for it suffer from an Unamerican mindset, a mindset that says community expectations outweigh individual rights and freedoms.
It is a mindset with which both major political parties are afflicted -- the Republicans in social matters, the Democrats in economic/fiscal matters. And that's just in theory; in practice, Democrats often limit social liberty and Republicans limit economic liberty as well. And they do so in ways that more often than not punish success and innovation and reward failure and stagnation. All in the name of community standards.
Libertarians have long held the belief that the two major parties are flip sides of the same coin -- less liberty, more government control. Libertarians have long referred to the two parties as one -- Demublicans or Republicrats. This treats the major parties with much too much genial generosity. I suggest a new name for those who choose to run for office under the Democrat or Republican banner -- the Unamerican Party.
What's that? You say there are SOME good Democrats and SOME good Republicans? That is like saying there are some good gangsters and some good Mafia members. While their individual actions may be noble, their willingness to belong to, and to run for office under the banner of, a corrupt organization disqualifies them from being "good." Their membership in these organizations points out that they do not truly believe in the American principle of individual liberty.
2 Comments:
I agree and I'm very disappointed with the results. I watched the returns online last night, getting more and more pissed off and disgusted with every click of the Refresh button.
Having supported 2 third-party candidates in previous presidential elections, I agree that the two-party system sucks, and I support efforts to bring other platforms onto the playing field. I don't think all Dems/Reps are bad. I think the system is what's bad, and other than supporting non-Dem or non-Rep candidates, I don't know how to fix it.
I do, however, partially blame the Republicans for the result of this election. They've hijacked "morality" and consistently rammed an agenda of fear down the throats of the public. But most of the blame goes to idiots who swallow it.
And as disappointed as I was in the results, I was even more appalled by the margin. So what's next? Now that this is done, how can it be undone?
Tina
The real question everyone should be asking is why anyone, gay, straight or even, as you point out, hermaphrodite, needs a license to marry in the first place. As such things go, if you choose to call somebody your husband, I don't believe there is actually any enforcement mechanism to stop you, other than not receiving the state license. I can't imagine that you are asserting a 'right' to a license. First, you are the John Galt of Thayer - would John Galt need a license to do what he wanted in a matter so intimate? Second, I'm sure your aware that a license is a grant of privilege and antithetical to the very concept of something as a 'right'. We don't seek a government 'license' to speak or a government license to take communion (if you're into that). If you want to marry another man, marry him.
Post a Comment
<< Home