You got to break some eggs to make an omelet.
Is breaking things orderly?
Probably not from the chicken's point of view...
db
Matthew Taylor wrote:
On Feb 10, 2009, at 11:36 PM, Vicky Staubly wrote:
That any state feels it can prohibit who I am as a person is outrageous
and should not be permitted in any civilized country, let along one that
claims to be as enlightened as we claim. People like you and Scalia
belong
in the Dark Ages.
Best to put me there with them - and all others who support a
government of laws and not of men. The very essence of judicial
impartiality is that a judge must rule on the law says, not what they
wish the law to be. In this nation there is a long established
jurisprudence that the state can indeed legislate matters of personal
morality when the legislature finds a compelling interest in doing
so. The state does it all the time. The state regulates vice, be it
the sex trade, recreational pharmaceuticals, or other activities it
considers detrimental to the public good. I don't think it should,
certainly not in the manner it does, but that is a political choice
the people through their representatives have made. The state
regulates marriage - the very act of sanctioning any form of marriage,
of defining marriage in law is an act of legislating morality. If you
argue for same sex marriage sanctioned by the state you are asserting
the power of the state to define marriage - that is legislating morality.
If our judges start, some would argue continue, ruling based on their
philosophy of what the law should be, or should mean today, as opposed
to what the drafters of a law meant at the time that they drafted it,
then we no longer have a government of laws. We simply have a
government of political majority - whatever that majority might be,
whenever and wherever assembled. That is a recipe for tyranny, not
liberty.
I respect your life choices - I have made some unorthodox choices
myself. I don't demand others welcome my choices, or even support my
choices. I certainly don't demand that the law be changed to suit my
choices - I do what I can to persuade others to support my views that
the laws should be changed in an orderly manner.
Finally, if Liberal isn't a bad word anymore, why do Liberals call
themselves Progressives now instead.
I have some more bad words for you, but I don't want to subject the
nice people on this list (as opposed to you) to them.
I can't help but notice you did not address the question - why do most
liberals appear to prefer progressive? Progressive is such an
interesting label. It implies change is valuable for the sake of
change itself - that the old must be dispensed with simply because it
is the old. It gives no weight to custom and tradition as the evolved
wisdom of society, yet most progressives strenuously argue that
evolution has shaped the members of society who now must change that
society in the name of progress. Such an interesting contradiction.
Matthew
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
