The U.S. Supreme Court decided to sit out the gay marriage ban debate in their non decision of only a few weeks ago. Since that happened, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down gay marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada, Governor Otter personally demanded an emergency stay which was also ultimately struck down, and now gay marriages are legal in Idaho set for today: 15 October 2014. I didn’t write any letters to the editor extolling the civil rights victories for gays. I don’t figure that I need to, since I am going to make my opinions far more public than the local newspapers. And that is, by putting them on this blog. I am not a Christian, I do not have religious issues with gays and lesbians partnering up and marrying if they wish. What I go by, is what the Declaration of Independence had to say in part, all men (humanity) are created equal. And being equal, have the rights granted by their creator, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I will also argue, that the founding fathers insisted on this country becoming a secular nation. You are free to believe anything you wish, as long as it is a privately held belief. As for what amounts to your public morals; the real argument should be, how you treat your fellow man, not what you impose as religious law on people who can legitimately disagree with you. Which a lot of big government religious activists have yet to wrap their heads around.
So, on this 15th of October 2014, the Coeur d’Alene Press was already hosting at least two anti-gay marriage letters to the editors, and one statement by a writer who saw an economic upside to it. One letter headline read “What went wrong,” another letter headline warned that marriage as an institution was at risk. Of course it is, and heterosexuals put marriage as an institution at risk every day. But you don’t hear about that when it comes to the big government religious activists. Where they are concerned, someone else (such as the gays, for example) must be at fault, because heterosexuals can’t handle having a marriage between one man and one woman. To the heterosexuals I argue this, get your own house in order before you complain about what your neighbor does. The institution of marriage is more at risk because of the attitudes and habits of the heterosexuals, than it will ever be from gays and lesbians.
No, it isn’t marriage that is at risk, it isn’t because you are a heterosexual that you are at risk. Rather, it has to do with the push back from the secular base of this nation, that has successfully won ground from the new religious left. I could also see where that push back could find its way into the voting booths in November, as well. When people finally get tired of the following:
- Race, gender based, against the elderly and the poor (because they might vote Democrat), voter suppression laws
- Religion as an excuse for government to regulate women’s reproduction and reproductive health to the most extreme measures, that can be set into law
- Political ideology that is more about fear mongering than actually addressing a positive future for the citizens of the country
- Blatant corruption that a recent SCOTUS decision now declares can be unimpeded by law
Then the voters will do their own push back at the polls. You can be certain of it.
Last night, the latest “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” had a particularly hilarious response to the “get money out of politics” movement. Who of course fund raise constantly for money to win against the GOP come November. Under the circumstances, maybe the argument should not be “get money out of politics.” The argument should instead be, does your candidate behave as though he or she has an intelligent grasp of the issues? How about his or her constituents? Can you say that the opposing candidate has been caught in numerous lies? How about felony charges and convictions? Jon Stewart made particular fun of the Democrats last night, and personally, I think they deserved being mocked. But I think that both he and I would personally agree, that we could work toward erasing corruption in politics. Currently, that corruption centers around the GOP. If Democratic affiliated groups are spending more money, to try to get their candidates into office; it is because they are plainly fed up with the current Congress and its failure to “do something.”
A slightly different theme, but still in line with the headline of this blog post: “What’s at risk?” A Facebook “discussion” came up recently about the cons and pros about GMO or frankenfood. With respect to Monsanto, who insists on inserting insect repellent into seeds. Or rendering corn, “Round Up” proof. What has not been studied, are the long term consequences of levels of toxicity, that may factually build up in a human body. That like Mercury in fish, may not just digest and ultimately pass out of the human body. If it hasn’t been studied, because Monsanto a chemical company wishes to broaden their market base and rushes these doctored seeds out to some very eager agribusiness buyers, then yes there would be a legitimate concern by a good many people as to whether such seeds would produce edible food. IE, food that won’t sicken or kill you. So, on Facebook were a couple of fellows who took turns trying to defend the “science” behind frankenfood. We unlock the secrets of DNA through scientific research, and companies like Archer Daniel Midland or Monsanto, commercialize transmutation by artificial means. I fail to find the “scientific” method behind what amounts to the work of mad scientists. If there are no long term studies about the health effects of frankenfood, if companies like Monsanto pour a lot of money into opposing anti-GMO ballot measures through out the 50 states, then I think we obviously have a problem. But no one among the Monsanto apologia choir is discussing the countries that have banned frankenfood and with good reason. Thus, while populist liberalism is all about making fundamental changes in the social, political, and economic order in a nation. Monsanto’s corporate liberalism, is all about making fundamental changes about our food supplies. With no thought about the long term consequences to our collective health; because the bottom line is all about profits, not people.