This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Quick question
Why is it that the same people who want abortion settled by the states want gay marriage settled by the federal government, through a constitutional amendment?
John McCain has opposed attempts to make gay marriage unconstitutional, and wants abortion settled by the states (which is, of course, all a reversal of Roe would do).
"The constitutional amendment [banning gay marriage] strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans.... It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."
Incidentally, note the positive tone of CNN's coverage of McCain on this issue. As long as McCain was poking his finger into the eyes of his fellow Republicans, the media loved him; now, they'd give David Duke more favorable coverage than McCain.
In addition to McCain, Republicans Arlen Specter, Judd Gregg, Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and John Sununu opposed the amendment to ban gay marriage, while two Democrats did support it (Robert Byrd and Ben Nelson).
So sure, most Republicans supported the bill, but that wasn't my point. Victor asked if anyone (I think he meant 'any Republicans') held both positions (i.e. that abortion and gay marriage are both state issues).
Eric: "Victor asked if anyone (I think he meant 'any Republicans') held both positions (i.e. that abortion and gay marriage are both state issues)."
Well, no, not really. What Mr Reppert was doing is leveling the charge of hypocrisy, in his typical passive-aggressive and misrepresentative method, against conservatives (in general).
An amendment would put it IN the Constitution. And, if it succeeds, would represent the WILL of the people. The right to abortion is NOT in the Constitution.
Why is it that the same people who want abortion settled by the states want gay marriage settled by the federal government, through a constitutional amendment?
Sorry to say it, this is clear evidence that you might not be playing with a full deck. I came to your blog because I loved your book. You might want to revisit Mr. Lewis's writings.
eric, So sure, most Republicans supported the bill, but that wasn't my point. Victor asked if anyone (I think he meant 'any Republicans') held both positions (i.e. that abortion and gay marriage are both state issues).
Prolifers oppose Roe v. Wade, which federalized illegitimately through the courts a bad view. Defenders of marriage are against federalizing illegitimately through the courts a bad view, same-sex marriage. Hence, the best way to stop that illegitimate federalization--as we learned too late from Roe v. Wade--is to federalize the good view legitimately through the amendment process, which is constitutional.
These views are not inconsistent, since both oppose procedural malfeasance through the courts to advance a bad view.
F.Beckwith: "[slight discussion of how we got to where we are today] ... These views are not inconsistent, since both oppose procedural malfeasance through the courts to advance a bad view."
Moreover -- if we were still governed by the *actual* US Constitution -- abortion law properly belongs in the sphere of the States, just as the laws on other methods of murder, or of manslaughter, or of reckless homicide are properly in the sphere of the State.
On the other hand, due to the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution, marriage and divorce law occupies a position in both State and Federal spheres -- this is even if we were still governed by the actual US Constitution.
However, the fact is that for longer than any of us here have been alive, the actual US Constitution has been ignored at all levels of government and of society.
12 comments:
Misrepresent much?
Are there people who hold both of these positions?
John McCain has opposed attempts to make gay marriage unconstitutional, and wants abortion settled by the states (which is, of course, all a reversal of Roe would do).
"The constitutional amendment [banning gay marriage] strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans.... It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/mccain.marriage/
Incidentally, note the positive tone of CNN's coverage of McCain on this issue. As long as McCain was poking his finger into the eyes of his fellow Republicans, the media loved him; now, they'd give David Duke more favorable coverage than McCain.
Its all those other Republicans McCain was poking in the eye to whom Victor was referring.
And I think the McCain campaign has been treated extremely fairly considering the way it has conducted itself, imho.
In addition to McCain, Republicans Arlen Specter, Judd Gregg, Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and John Sununu opposed the amendment to ban gay marriage, while two Democrats did support it (Robert Byrd and Ben Nelson).
So sure, most Republicans supported the bill, but that wasn't my point. Victor asked if anyone (I think he meant 'any Republicans') held both positions (i.e. that abortion and gay marriage are both state issues).
Eric: "Victor asked if anyone (I think he meant 'any Republicans') held both positions (i.e. that abortion and gay marriage are both state issues)."
Well, no, not really. What Mr Reppert was doing is leveling the charge of hypocrisy, in his typical passive-aggressive and misrepresentative method, against conservatives (in general).
Completely off topic: Victor, how do you pronounce your last name?
An amendment would put it IN the Constitution. And, if it succeeds, would represent the WILL of the people. The right to abortion is NOT in the Constitution.
Why is it that the same people who want abortion settled by the states want gay marriage settled by the federal government, through a constitutional amendment?
Sorry to say it, this is clear evidence that you might not be playing with a full deck. I came to your blog because I loved your book. You might want to revisit Mr. Lewis's writings.
eric,
So sure, most Republicans supported the bill, but that wasn't my point. Victor asked if anyone (I think he meant 'any Republicans') held both positions (i.e. that abortion and gay marriage are both state issues).
Good point. I misread his quesion.
Victor:
Prolifers oppose Roe v. Wade, which federalized illegitimately through the courts a bad view. Defenders of marriage are against federalizing illegitimately through the courts a bad view, same-sex marriage. Hence, the best way to stop that illegitimate federalization--as we learned too late from Roe v. Wade--is to federalize the good view legitimately through the amendment process, which is constitutional.
These views are not inconsistent, since both oppose procedural malfeasance through the courts to advance a bad view.
F.Beckwith: "[slight discussion of how we got to where we are today] ... These views are not inconsistent, since both oppose procedural malfeasance through the courts to advance a bad view."
Moreover -- if we were still governed by the *actual* US Constitution -- abortion law properly belongs in the sphere of the States, just as the laws on other methods of murder, or of manslaughter, or of reckless homicide are properly in the sphere of the State.
On the other hand, due to the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution, marriage and divorce law occupies a position in both State and Federal spheres -- this is even if we were still governed by the actual US Constitution.
However, the fact is that for longer than any of us here have been alive, the actual US Constitution has been ignored at all levels of government and of society.
Post a Comment