Recently I've seen a lot of media attention, both colloquial and professional, on the passing of a health care bill. One that we find is unpopular in the poles and has even prompted a number of 'yes' voting congress people to simply retire rather than run again with that vote on their recent record. I'll admit the lines between direct democracy and the republic of representational government do not allow for a razor to gut this beast cleanly. But one question does come down to a final yes or no answer. And that question is do we get to determine our governance, or not? Are we not the final arbiter of our rights and liberties?
Bill Whittle, an author I routinely read, has published a very good essay on the "why" of the United States of America. There are a number of reasons to link to it here, if not just for this quote it carries from Abraham Lincoln...
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.
But I urge you to read it, for the prominence and memorializing of a single concept ... that we as a people determine our own governance. Not only can we be the best arbiters of ultimate justice, but giving us the exercise in doing so will help us to learn and do even better in that most critical of responsibilities.
I'm bringing it up now, and here, because we at Opine have been observing a struggle over our democracy for a while over the marriage issue. Looking back at what has eroded since, I would say the issue of marriage has been the canary in the coal mine for our democracy. We've seen marriage defended by popular vote with amazing regularity. But as a result we've seen those who wish to neuter marriage find more and more egregious ways to overcome the burden of citizens and barrier of their self-determination. And the last great day of Republican power in congress, the last day when they looked like they would hold on to power for another decade or so, was when they voted on the FMA -- and voted it down. After that its been all down hill even though as a populous we continue to defend marriage in their absence.
"But one question does come down to a final yes or no answer. And that question is who gets to determine our governance?"
ReplyDeleteActually, that question doesn't come down to a yes or no answer.
Your opening paragraph contains some of the poorest writing I've seen lately--and that's saying something, for someone who frequents this site. I have concluded that Fitz must be dyslexic--either that, or he's lying about being an attorney.
Anyway, I know it's just a blog, but have a little pride.
Thanks for the note. I'll go through and edit it.
ReplyDeleteBut I have to note, that usually people don't make such inane criticism unless driven by some sour grapes :)
It is important to understand that marriage and family created society, not the other way around. Our laws can recognize and describe marriage and family, but it is folly for them to try to change these concepts. Our system of government loses much credbility when it calls nonmarriage marriage, or trivilizes the meaning and power of family. Society suffers as a result.
ReplyDelete"Your opening paragraph contains some of the poorest writing I've seen lately--and that's saying something, for someone who frequents this site. I have concluded that Fitz must be dyslexic--either that, or he's lying about being an attorney."
ReplyDeleteI concur Miles, those were also my sentiments. Fitz's grammar, syntax, spelling, well my old high school English teacher would've had her red pen out with a vengeance for a solid "F".
As to the attorney part, when consulted for input regarding Fitz's legal acumen my attorney friend thought its possible he's just one of tham there "internet attorneys".
Just when one thinks Ronnie and caleb have nothing of substance to offer they open their mouths and prove it.
ReplyDeleteYep,
ReplyDeleteI like to think they are grammar nazi's because they care. Instead I fear they are concentrating on grammar because it is conveniently beside the point :)
Besides, this is an unusually scholarly tack for the otherwise dancing monkey routine that Caleb does :) I for one think it is more credible, but less entertainment value.
Walrus, do you think that same-sex marriage supporters are trivializing or denigrating the concept of family? If anything, many of us are committed so much to the notion of family that we want our government (to whom we pay taxes, for whom we go to war, etc.) to fully recognize and support all our families, not just a select group of them.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, the people like that representative (can't remember her name now) who stated that same-sex families are just a group of people living together are the ones denigrating the concept of family.