s e p r a h
link here
old projects

s i t e s

u p d a t e s

05.03.08: Photos section revamped.

s h o u t   o u t
blackboard jungle
daily kos
endo locusta credo
fat free vegan
kelly/ lj
post secret
rude cactus
tomato nation
vegan lunchbox
witch in the city

m e
how I feel
blog archive

c a u s e s
peace corps
united blood services

p o w e r e d
dream host
code grrl
automatic rotator

3.04.2004 ||>  

I warned about political posts. Here's one. If you are politically conservative and don't agree with me, it's ok. Just don't bother trying to change my opinion, since no one ever seems able...

The first issue that's been on my mind is gay marriage. There has been much in the news about with topic, what with San Francisco illegally granting liscences and that "amendment" that a vocal minority are pushing for. Amusingly enough, I was already debating this topic with my father at age 15. It was our biggest political chasm as a matter of fact. He was against it very much and I thought it was the right thing to do. I sort of see it as a modern day version of the 60's inter-racial marriage issue. Nowadays, the question of whether inter-racial marriage should be legal is a no-brainer, but then? I think, in 20 years or so we will think of gay marriage in the same fashion and wonder why people ever could be against it.

But at the moment, there are people going so far as to propose an amendment to the Constitution. I think this is stupid for many reasons - one of which is that I don't think it has a chance in hell of making it (so it's just a horrifying political ploy). But I suppose that silliness can go both ways. Gay rights' groups aren't playing the cards with a whole lot of cunning. The most offensive thing about this amendment idea (to most "regualr" Americans - whatever that means) isn't that it limits civil rights (although it does), but that it also limits the rights of states to make their own rules - which makes it against the 9th amendment to the Constitution.

Because each state is different they should have different laws. Massachussets shouldn't have to adopt the death penalty because Texas has it and vice versa. It sort of the same thing with marriage. Equating marriage and death aside, we as a society shouldn't have to give up our rights for any reason, and this is a pretty bad reason to sacrifice them. Not to mention the last rights-revoking amendment that was passed was Prohibition. And see how well that worked out?

Anyway, it would be well if gay rights' activistists would pair up with states' rights activists so they could cover a wider spectrum. Instead of crying, "Because it's wrong!" as their argument, they could work with states advocates and widen their support. It will also appeal more to non-liberal voters if they explain to them in a way they can mutually agree on. Right now it seems that they are wasting both their breath and their time.

Sepra was livin' easy on 4:50:00 AM || Site Feed ||