Why the FMA is unconstitutional...

Wednesday November 8, 2006 at 11:53am theology, sociology, politics, rights, legal Comments (1) »

...and largely BS.

This is a redundancy of a post I just made in the Humanity forum, but i don't mind the repeat - and I think its appropriate for my blog. Feel free to comment here, but if you wish to begin a dialogue or debate, please reply in the Forum.

Since our wonderful state of TN just passed this amendment by some ungodly margin (something like 75%), i guess all the propaganda paid off.

I would also like to point out that i am *only* writing this to solidify my own thoughts on the matter.

Over the last few weeks I have heard nothing from the media but about how not passing this amendment would "weaken marriage" and how it is our constitutional duty to "protect marriage".

In addition, I have also heard several preachers and people from local churches over the course of that time encouraging people to get out an vote on this issue - with an implied "christian duty" to see this amendment passed.

Of the 1.2 million people in the state who voted in favor of it - i wonder how many of them actually stopped to look through the media at the actual issue being addressed.

The FMA does NOT strengthen or otherwise protect marriage. From everything I've read about the amendment, it only mentions conventional, heterosexual marriage in defining what marriage should not be. In other words, it takes absolutely NOTHING away from this 'normal' marriage, it only denies the same rights we enjoy to people with other preferences. The idea that the FMA "strengthens marriage" is nothing but a catch phrase meant to impress upon heterosexual married people (a substantial part of the voting community) that they need to somehow protect themselves. It is complete BS. Saying that the legalization of homosexual marriage would weaken heterosexual marriage is like saying allowing african-american people to vote weakens democracy.

The FMA is NOT a morality issue. I suspect that a substantial portion of those voting for the FMA in this area of the Bible Belt are doing so because they believe homosexuality is "wrong". Aside from the problems of trying to legislate morality (see Constantine, et al), this amendment really has nothing to do with such opinions. Making homosexual marriage illegal is not going to in any way hinder homosexuality, nor is it going to convince homosexuals wanting to be in a stable, legally-recognized relationship to somehow 'become' heterosexual (insert tangent on how many christians seem to think this is something a homosexual can 'decide' to do) that they might do so; it is merely denying legal rights to people who happen to live differently.

See a trend?

The FMA is a civil rights issue. The FMA does NOTHING but deny legal rights to people who happen to have a certain preference. It is only the second amendment ever proposed that actually takes rights away from the people instead of granting them. The first was the Prohibition. We saw how well that went over.

This amendment is discrimination. It is contrary to the principles of liberty this country was founded upon. It is xenophobic. It is unconstitutional. It is unchristian.

Damn. I almost sounded patriotic there.

~PS

Propagandish Tele-spam

Friday February 24, 2006 at 1:27pm spam, politics Comments (8) »

So, despite that fact that i'm on at least 2 supposedly-national no-call lists, I got a recorded phone call this morning.

The recording of the nice lady was telling me quite emphatically that it was absolutely critical that i register to vote in this state so that our "republican leaders can continue to get elected and fight and win the war on terror".

I found this to be a bit disturbing for several reasons:

1) At no point did it mention anything about the democratic process of duly elected officials.

2) At no point did it mention anything about an individual's right to decide which parties to vote for.

3) The underlying assumption of the recorded message was that i, when i inevitably register, will vote republican

4) ...because that's the 'right thing to do'.

5) The message blatantly uses the 'war on terror' as a campaign boost - even though you can't declare war on a concept and it almost seems like they're saying it's a good thing - 'yeah, vote for the guys who brought you the War On Terror'

Really, there's nothing else i could do by roll my eyes.

~PS