-Caveat Lector-
With all due respect, Reverend, I think you are confused on a number of
key issues. The Republican party has championed the idea of trying to
impose the Christian fundamentalist agenda on the country. It is
President Bill Clinton who has tried bring some measure of diversity to
the political process ( his willingness to appoint gays and women to key
positions in government).
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Reverend S. Michael Wilson wrote:
-Caveat Lector-
WARNING: What follows is a personal opinion piece that does NOT go into
detail about perjury under oath, dishonesty, political scandal, cigars, or
anything else that has been gracing the headlines for the past months. Do not
simply delete this, thinking that it is nothing but more of the same old
Republican Moralistic Posturing, or outraged cries of Its not about sex!
The following is something I consider to be fresh stomping ground, and should
cause those who are capable of thinking to do so.
With Bill Clintons impeachment trials just around the corner, and public
opinion on the fairness and legitimacy of the crusade against Clinton being
espoused and dictated by more polls and editorials than the average human can
normally stomach in a single sitting, I have decided to finally throw my own
conscience grenades into the philosophical battlegrounds. I fully realise
that anybody and everybody has their own beliefs on the subject of Clintons
High Crimes Misdemeanours as of late, and be they political or moral
justifications, most of them tend to echo and repeat one another with similar
(if not identical) arguments.
It is with this knowledge that I am offering my own thoughts on the matter
for public consumption, for I feel that I have taken a standpoint on this
whole Circus Politicus that has not been touched upon by anybody. Some may
have hinted in this direction, and others may have poorly summed it up in a
snappy catch-phrase of some kind, but I am positive that what follows has not
yet been properly preached by anyone. Allow me to be the first.
Simply put, I say nail the bastard, and for no other reason than getting
even. What do I mean? Well, many of Clintons defenders are quit fond of
stating that the only thing that The President is guilty of is cheating on his
wife and lying about it, and while Adultery is a bad and naughty thing, it is
by no means reason for impeachment, and should only be of concern to him, his
wife, and his priest. Not a bad argument, especially for anyone like myself,
who feels that the personal life of one individual is no business of anybody
but himself, as long as his personal life is in no way harming or victimising
another individual. Since most people tend to be (or merely think of
themselves as) rational on this level, this argument tends to hold its own.
After all, this is a free country.
Or is it?
Arent we free to consume what we please, as long as we do not harm or
victimise anybody else? Yes, we are. But then, what about the countless
Americans that are arrested and imprisoned for using recreational drugs that
are not deemed legal by our government? Does the pot smoker who lives in the
apartment next to me pose any direct threat to me or anybody else, merely
because he is smoking pot? Is he any more of a threat to you or me then the
millions of people who consume legal drugs like nicotine and caffeine and
alcohol. People are harassed and imprisoned, their possessions confiscated
and sold, their lives torn apart, not because they have used a mind altering
substance for recreational purposes, but because they have used a mind
altering substance that our government does not approve of for recreational
purposes.
Arent we free to pursue personal and intimate relationships with whomever we
want to, as long as we do not harm or victimise anybody else in the process?
Yes, we are. But then, what about the countless men and women who are
arrested and imprisoned for sleeping with one another, because one of them has
paid the other for the privilege? Does the prostitute standing on the street
corner or sitting in the brothel pose any direct threat to me or anybody else,
simply because she is offering to have sex with someone in exchange for money?
Or the john that of his own free will offers to pay her for her services, does
he pose any direct threat to me or anybody else, merely because he is willing
to take her up on her offer? Going beyond that, what about all of the gay and
lesbian couples who are unable to legally enjoy a mutual existence the way any
heterosexual couple can, because our government has seen fit to judge them as
unworthy of vowing themselves to one another? What about the gays and
lesbians who have been told that they are not worthy of fighting and possibly
dying for their country because of their sexual preference, but that they may
still join as
