Rant inspired by a radio debate
Sep. 10th, 2004 02:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
agilebritSo, I was listening to Michael Medved yesterday, and he had a couple of guys debating gay marriage on the air. And the one who supported gay marriage said, basically, "You can't impose your Biblically-based views on the rest of us."
And maybe it's just me being bitchy or PMS-y again, but my question is: "Why not?"
Why is my Biblically-based view of what the law should be any less valid than someone else's non- (or anti-, for that matter) Biblically based view? Why should I be disenfranchised just because my position on morality is based on the Bible? Have I suddenly become 3/5ths of a person, with the part of me whose views are Biblically-based not counting? Why should I have any less right than a gay person to petition my representatives and make my views known, just because I'm a Christian? And why should they dismiss my viewpoint out of hand, just because it agrees with a religion? Doesn't all law "impose morality"? So, I guess the major question becomes, "Whose morality are we going to impose?"
When left-wing religious people make their views known, no one says that they should shut up because their views are religious in nature. No one whines "Hey, you're imposing your morality" when someone opposes the death penalty by arguing that life and death are the purview of God alone. The media doesn't throw a hissy fit when a Gaia-worshiping environmentalist ties herself up in a tree for three months and tries to put a lumber company out of business. Nobody accuses an atheist of "imposing their morality" when they sue to get the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. No one minds when left-wing Catholics attempt to create government in the image of their Church by having that government provide services that have traditionally been under the scope of religious organizations. I don't see Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton being told to shut their mouths because they're Reverends and therefore don't have the right to speak out on issues of social justice and morality.
If the religious left is allowed to press for their agenda, based on their worldview, then by golly, I have that same exact right.
Let's face it. One way or another, we're going to get some kind of law "imposed" on us on the issue of gay marriage. Either the Legislature is going to do it by the will of the people, or the Judiciary is going to do it by fiat. And I know which I'd rather see, because judges in this country have been pulling law out of their asses for years now, and no one has the wrinklies to stand up to them and say "No, you're wrong, and we're not going follow this ruling."
Of course, the argument goes that, if we start ignoring judicial mandates, then we have chaos. But what do we have now? Seems like anytime a law gets passed these days, someone immediately sues, and then it has to wend its way through the courts until some unelected, unaccountable person in a black robe makes a decision. And if it's a law that 75% of the country agrees with, but some zealot of a judge doesn't want (for example, laws against partial- birth abortion--a procedure which never ever has to be used for the benefit of the health or to save the life of the woman, according to my ob-gyn, who teaches at the college and knows his business), then *BOOM* it gets struck down without so much as a by-your-leave.
What I see is that we have chaos now, because we can never be sure that a law passed will be a law that stays. So we have confusion over what the law is. When unelected, unaccountable people can decide on a flat whim that they don't like a law, and have the power to strike it down on the thinnest of Constitutional grounds, that's the next best thing to lawlessness. The judiciary branch of the government isn't supposed to make law for the rest of us, but they've come dangerously close to it on a number of occasions and continue to do so. And when they do that, we're all disenfranchised.
And maybe it's just me being bitchy or PMS-y again, but my question is: "Why not?"
Why is my Biblically-based view of what the law should be any less valid than someone else's non- (or anti-, for that matter) Biblically based view? Why should I be disenfranchised just because my position on morality is based on the Bible? Have I suddenly become 3/5ths of a person, with the part of me whose views are Biblically-based not counting? Why should I have any less right than a gay person to petition my representatives and make my views known, just because I'm a Christian? And why should they dismiss my viewpoint out of hand, just because it agrees with a religion? Doesn't all law "impose morality"? So, I guess the major question becomes, "Whose morality are we going to impose?"
When left-wing religious people make their views known, no one says that they should shut up because their views are religious in nature. No one whines "Hey, you're imposing your morality" when someone opposes the death penalty by arguing that life and death are the purview of God alone. The media doesn't throw a hissy fit when a Gaia-worshiping environmentalist ties herself up in a tree for three months and tries to put a lumber company out of business. Nobody accuses an atheist of "imposing their morality" when they sue to get the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. No one minds when left-wing Catholics attempt to create government in the image of their Church by having that government provide services that have traditionally been under the scope of religious organizations. I don't see Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton being told to shut their mouths because they're Reverends and therefore don't have the right to speak out on issues of social justice and morality.
If the religious left is allowed to press for their agenda, based on their worldview, then by golly, I have that same exact right.
Let's face it. One way or another, we're going to get some kind of law "imposed" on us on the issue of gay marriage. Either the Legislature is going to do it by the will of the people, or the Judiciary is going to do it by fiat. And I know which I'd rather see, because judges in this country have been pulling law out of their asses for years now, and no one has the wrinklies to stand up to them and say "No, you're wrong, and we're not going follow this ruling."
Of course, the argument goes that, if we start ignoring judicial mandates, then we have chaos. But what do we have now? Seems like anytime a law gets passed these days, someone immediately sues, and then it has to wend its way through the courts until some unelected, unaccountable person in a black robe makes a decision. And if it's a law that 75% of the country agrees with, but some zealot of a judge doesn't want (for example, laws against partial- birth abortion--a procedure which never ever has to be used for the benefit of the health or to save the life of the woman, according to my ob-gyn, who teaches at the college and knows his business), then *BOOM* it gets struck down without so much as a by-your-leave.
What I see is that we have chaos now, because we can never be sure that a law passed will be a law that stays. So we have confusion over what the law is. When unelected, unaccountable people can decide on a flat whim that they don't like a law, and have the power to strike it down on the thinnest of Constitutional grounds, that's the next best thing to lawlessness. The judiciary branch of the government isn't supposed to make law for the rest of us, but they've come dangerously close to it on a number of occasions and continue to do so. And when they do that, we're all disenfranchised.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-11 09:26 pm (UTC)Also as a Christian, and obviously we are different denominations, and have dfifferent views, but I have always understood that God wants us to each choose of our own free will to follow his laws or not, and that he weants no man or woman to force another to follow his laws. To force soemone to follow God's laws is to take his place and "Judge" or as it should be translated, "Rule" others, and we arent supposed to do that.
That is my interpretation, and I respect that yours may be different. To me, free will will always be the greatest gift, and the one to be most defended, that God has ever given us.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-11 10:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-12 02:31 am (UTC)