I have recently in a continuing conversation about gay marriage and the Constitution. In this discussion several issues have come up, but none bigger than the need for a Constitutional Amendment allowing gay couples to receive status in the eyes of the law.
I contend that we do not need an amendment, for fear of how it would be used in the future and with the understanding that the present amendments provide grounds for the allowance of gay marriage. Now would be an appropriate time to state that I am completely for allowing gay couples to marry and receive benefits as such. Marriage is a hard undertaking (coming from someone who has had one to fail) but denying the joys of such a challenge is ridiculous to say the least.
My fears of how the amendments may be used in the future are not the typical. I do not fear people wanting to marry animals or multiple people. I fear a marriage amendment being used by corporations (already sadly defined as people) to manipulate deals in their favor and hurt common people. Yes, an amendment would help those gay couples that want to be married, but it may well hurt them in the long run when we all go sliding headlong down this slippery slope already being tilted by the Supreme Court. It is a clear fact that companies and the wealthy will use the system in their favor to make even more money, and opening the door for them to "marry" and gain all the civil benefits is not something we need.
In addition I feel that our current Constitution, if interpreted correctly, can be used to justify gay marriage. Using the Fifth, Tenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment, the Supreme Court could allow for gay marriage laws to stay in the states. This idea does open the door to a perpetual battle much like the battle faught over abortion, but it allow us to prevent further harm. Marriage is after all a state mandate and the Tenth Amendment allows all power not listed in the Constitution to be reserved to the states. The Ninth Amendment states that any right not established by the Constitution at the time of its writing to be allowed in the future. If the right to marry is allowed by the states, then under the Tenth and Ninth Amendment gay couples should be allowed to marry. Even under the Fifth Amendment's statement for the rights of "life, liberty, and property," gay couples could argue it is unconstitutional for them to not be allowed marriage. If laws deny gay couples to share property such as homes, cars, or insurance policies, are they not in violation of the Constitution?
I am by no means a Constitution expert, and I may be coming at this from a wrong direction. What do you think? Are you for or against gay marriage? If so how did you form your opinion? Are you for an Amendment or not? I am curious what other people are thinking and talking about. Maybe I'm wrong. Write me a comment and tell me what you think. Leave it here or my facebook page.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Alittle Political Humor
http://developmentryangosling.tumblr.com/
For all you Ryan Gosling fans..and maybe a few econ nerds
Sorta what it is looking like
For all you Ryan Gosling fans..and maybe a few econ nerds
Does This Make Me A Radical?
I started reading Saul Alinksy's book "Rules For Radicals" two nights ago and I can already feel Newt Gingrich's doughboy death-rays turning in my direction. Once I get further into the book, my objections will be rationed out, but I have one already. Alinsky's main point is the idea of fighting the system from within, yet not seeming to just throw caution to the wind and change.
While I fundamentally agree with Alinsky on this point, I have the hardest time not wanting to just chunk the whole system out and start over. At least I feel this way on a micro level of say education. I feel like the education system is terribly damaged and needs to be canned post haste. Alinsky would say that I must fight it from within, maybe by becoming a vice- principle, then principle, then move to a central office position, then on and on.
I see this as a two fold problem. 1) I do not want to climb the ladder (it's not why I got into teaching) and 2) When you climb the ladder it puts you further from the ground, thus making you part of the problem and not part of the solution. Many teacher see the ladder climbers disjointed from the classroom and distant from the realities of day to day life in real education. Of course ladder climber will say they have a good knowledge of the classroom by their annual visits in for observation, but I disagree.
To compound the problem, those with the real power (state education sectaries, or federal leaders) have even less of a clue what takes to implement their policies. It is virtually impossible for these people to have taught in the classroom for very long, and achieve the political stature required to obtain these type of positions.Thus the true conundrum of education, and Alinsky's main point. How do you can from within, if within is the problem.
On a macro level I could not agree more with Alinsky. Our American Democracy has kinks that need fixing (the huge effect of money on election, the hidden corruption of lobbyists to name two) but over-all it is a far cry better than it could be. Those problems that need to be repaired can and should be done so from with in, and for the most part we are achieving those repairs. Yes, more qualified young people need to enter into the political scene, but with the rise of Tea Party and OWS type movements we are seeing that. More and more young people are voting, and participating in elections. If anything President Obama's election in 2008 shows that. The only foreseeable hindrance I can see is the Republican field for 2012 but we still thankfully have Obama to get behind.
Perhaps what little I have read of Alinksy is wearing off on me. We are changing the system from with in, or at least have the mechanisms in place. Young people need to continue their involvement, and activism and not get discouraged. Activism is what the establishment fears the most. It is pretty evident what Newt Gingrich fears the most is young people taking the power (held for a ever so brief time) away from those in power. This fear is compounded because those of Gingrich and Romney's age held or are holding power for so little time, which means they must cling to it even more tightly.
This being said, I am encouraged by what I see in the likes of fighting the system from within. If I am totally crazy, let me know by leaving a comment. I'd love to debate the finer points of fighting the system from within. Does it work on a micro and marco level? Leave a comment and we can debate.
While I fundamentally agree with Alinsky on this point, I have the hardest time not wanting to just chunk the whole system out and start over. At least I feel this way on a micro level of say education. I feel like the education system is terribly damaged and needs to be canned post haste. Alinsky would say that I must fight it from within, maybe by becoming a vice- principle, then principle, then move to a central office position, then on and on.
I see this as a two fold problem. 1) I do not want to climb the ladder (it's not why I got into teaching) and 2) When you climb the ladder it puts you further from the ground, thus making you part of the problem and not part of the solution. Many teacher see the ladder climbers disjointed from the classroom and distant from the realities of day to day life in real education. Of course ladder climber will say they have a good knowledge of the classroom by their annual visits in for observation, but I disagree.
To compound the problem, those with the real power (state education sectaries, or federal leaders) have even less of a clue what takes to implement their policies. It is virtually impossible for these people to have taught in the classroom for very long, and achieve the political stature required to obtain these type of positions.Thus the true conundrum of education, and Alinsky's main point. How do you can from within, if within is the problem.
On a macro level I could not agree more with Alinsky. Our American Democracy has kinks that need fixing (the huge effect of money on election, the hidden corruption of lobbyists to name two) but over-all it is a far cry better than it could be. Those problems that need to be repaired can and should be done so from with in, and for the most part we are achieving those repairs. Yes, more qualified young people need to enter into the political scene, but with the rise of Tea Party and OWS type movements we are seeing that. More and more young people are voting, and participating in elections. If anything President Obama's election in 2008 shows that. The only foreseeable hindrance I can see is the Republican field for 2012 but we still thankfully have Obama to get behind.
Perhaps what little I have read of Alinksy is wearing off on me. We are changing the system from with in, or at least have the mechanisms in place. Young people need to continue their involvement, and activism and not get discouraged. Activism is what the establishment fears the most. It is pretty evident what Newt Gingrich fears the most is young people taking the power (held for a ever so brief time) away from those in power. This fear is compounded because those of Gingrich and Romney's age held or are holding power for so little time, which means they must cling to it even more tightly.
This being said, I am encouraged by what I see in the likes of fighting the system from within. If I am totally crazy, let me know by leaving a comment. I'd love to debate the finer points of fighting the system from within. Does it work on a micro and marco level? Leave a comment and we can debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)