unmasked ugliness
it’s not often that i write about political mutterings here, not often that i say a heavy piece. perhaps that’s the minnesotan in me - trying not to offend by avoiding anything of controversial substance.
i’m on vacation, i’m playing in an island nation and doing my best to avoid the media - commercials, weighted news points, opinionated columnists, etc… i spent four months without the majority of these things and i have to say that it was incredibly refreshing.
even here, however, on vacation, relaxing on ocean beaches and in the shadow of mountains 8000 miles from home, even here i can’t escape what i feel as the heavy hand of bigotry.
i just learned that bush has officially endorsed and is now promoting a constitutional ammendment that would ban same-sex marriage, pushing an attempt to specifically define marriage in the constitution as a union between a man and a woman.
as best i know, in the 28 ammendments that have been passed and ratified in 200 odd years, only one has ever specifically limited rights and freedoms - prohibition. one more specifically revoked that former ammendment. all others were to delegate further rights (be they to states or individuals), to prevent those rights and freedoms from being trampled, and to preserve the equality of the individual in this nation. to propose an ammendment that would specifically limit the right of an individual is ludicrus, regardless of what right is limited or who the individual is.
in 1967 it took a court decision to force the allowance of interacial marriage. in that decision came a jarring definition - that:
“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”
— Loving v. Virginia, 1967
marriage as one of the “basic civil rights of man,” marriage as the “pursuit of happiness.”
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
— The Declaration of Independence, 1776
marriage has long been defined by religious institutions, has long been debated and discussed in theocratic circles. it should continue to be so. the marriage debate is best held in public, and i hope that it is a lively, open discussion. i sincerely hope that various religions are able to find and define their stance on marriage and then can actively support it - within their own congregations. the boundaries and definitions of marriage should be left up to the individuals involved in a coupling and the institutions they choose to be involved in the process, not to the individuals observing it.
for the federal government to step in and regulate marriage (particularly through a constitutional ammendment) is insidious in its trampling of state rights and individual rights. it is a movement toward a religious decision, one more step (a giant one) toward the theocracy i hope never to see in place of our democracy and the limiting rights of the countries we so vehemetly choose to hate in the shadow of terrorism.
we may not all agree with the decisions of those who sit next to us, but the beauty of the united states is that we can think, act, and live differently than one another. many, many years of toil and many, many lives have gone into protecting our freedoms - i care not to see the reversal of that process, the limiting of personal liberty, in my lifetime.
i am on vacation in a foreign country. i am 8000 miles from my home. i don’t like being ashamed of the government of my country (dirty looks abound for u.s. citizens, even in the fairly conservative nation of new zealand). i don’t want to be ashamed of our constitution (it is a proud document) and i don’t ever, ever want to feel as if i’d be better off not returning to my home.
Comments
Don’t carry on with such a heavy heart or with such derision for the current administration. I agree with you that this is not a matter for a constitutional amendment, but at least at this point the will of the majority in this country is that this is not an acceptable act. I believe that this is a states rights issue, but it is my feeling that neither the state or the federal government has the right to license or regulate marriage. Because there is no regulation or enforcement of the marriage contract the only reason for the state to do this is to use the license as a revenue source.
This will all work itself out, in time, just as prohibition did and as the civil rights movement did and still is doing, all the things that are right about this country are all the things that are wrong with it. We all have to believe in it and its ultimate ability to work it out over time.
You and I can talk when you get back, maybe over a fence project and you will see that we will some times be on the same side of the fence and some times we will be on opposite sides of the fence, but we will always be able to reach across the fence to shake hands. If either of us throws in the towel and walks away then all is lost. NO MATTER how disgusted you get with your chosen land and its leaders always remember that you can not change the rules if you walk away from the game.
Posted by: the old man | February 26, 2004 01:29 AM
i’m not actually in any delusion that the amendment would pass - it would be too politically destructive to push for it entirely. i doubt very much it will make it out of the senate, let alone move on to be ratified by the states.
what bothers me most is the fact that this was brought up at a politically expedient time, to be used as a campaign issue. not only does it allow bush to appeal to his strongest constituency, but it also allows a wedge to be driven in the debates of the democratic primaries. to oppose a ban on same-sex marriages entirely would be to alienate the conservative swing voters that john kerry and john edwards are working to court and are required to have for success. in not standing against it they also risk alienating the gay and lesbian vote, a powerful block, though far from a majority.
my personal views on this issue aside, it is still political manuevering of the worst kind, dragging the constitution into the elections as nothing more than an avenue for diversions and divisions. i don’t feel it accident that the announcement (and subsequent media explosion) was made on the same day that george tenet was testifying before the senate intelligence comittee in regards to the war on iraq.
from my stand point the president used a very controversial issue to shield his administration from possible criticism in the media over the handling of inteligence during the run up to the second gulf war. it’s one of the most disgusting masks i’ve seen yet and a sign as to what the administration is willing to wager in the upcoming political battle.
i came down hard on this particular topic, but behind it boiled out four months of frustration built up from watching the democratic primaries and the republican administration. i find politics a terrible business where nothing is sacred.
i have a vote to use, but, as per usual, i see no candidate yet who would leave me feeling proud for casting my vote in his or her favor.
those with dignity tend to shy away from the process, or are forced to lose it along the way.
as to the heavy heart, worry not too much. i can lighten it quickly when i remove myself from computers and television. whether bar-hopping with friends in little new zealand towns or hiking across a mountain range, my frustrations run away and wonder at what we have before us fills me. the administration and politics that i am frustrated with are temporary. the world and people that i love are not.
and i’ll definitely look forward to working on that fence with you when i get home…
Posted by: noblehobo | February 26, 2004 05:17 AM
Maybe you haven’t picked this up overseas, I’m sure it wasn’t front page news’ but your man from last go round has tossed in his hat just two days ago. Ralph Nader has announced a run as an independent.
Just thought you might want to know.
Posted by: the old man | February 26, 2004 05:53 AM
Hey Nathan. I enjoyed reading your thoughts… and I am of the same mind as you on this issue. I can’t say that I’m much surprised by the Bush administration, but that doesn’t lessen the sick-to-my-stomach feeling… while I agree with you that it is a convenient distraction from the war for the Bush people, I find it just as disgusting that they’re taking the bigoted majority view and attempting to legitimize it in order to gain back popular support now that it’s waning. You’re right on about that comparison to Loving.
Unrelated note: I sent you an email to your usap address and it bounced back, so I attempted to send one to the address I had for you before that… anyway, just in case you didn’t get either of these emails… I got your letter (thanks!) and I will be here around the 15th (spring break starts on the 19th, but I’ll likely still be around for most of that anyway) so if you want to extend your layover in LA, I’d be glad to have you for a few days. Email me and we can discuss details.
OK, gotta go to class and learn some more of this law stuff :)
Lindsay
Posted by: Lindsay | February 27, 2004 10:14 AM