Moderation

The last post did something I have hoped all of my posts would do: it started a conversation on Facebook.  Yay!  But I had to use the delete button on the post linking to my blog.  I feel I need to explain.

I have one reason, and one reason only (so far) for unfriending someone on Facebook, and that is that they don't post enough to be interesting.  I don't unfriend everyone who fills that description, for there are other reasons to keep in touch with people, but I won't unfriend someone who I don't agree with, or even someone I don't like much, as long as they keep me entertained and are willing to talk to me. That being said, I do keep my finger on the delete button when it comes to specific comments. And I have rules to help me decide what to delete.

My friend Bobby has been a person of ideological persuasion, but some of his recent Facebook posts have hinted that he wants to move toward a more empirical approach to understanding the issues of the day.  This pleases me, but as he is new to the process, he doesn't always know where to look.  The comments he posted were some quotes from some people with rather fringe ideas, which he explained as an effort to understand the political roots of the movement.  I don't believe he's going to find that understanding on the fringe. 
    He didn't quite violate the first rule, which is "The comment must have something to do with the post," but it did have the potential to move the conversation away from the subject, so once our discussion re his comments was over, I deleted it, lest someone else get involved.

My friend Jason is a special case.  He's on a journey which I've already been on.  I came out all right, but there are several places he could wind up at the end, some of them good, some of them worry me, but he's got to make this journey on his own because his circumstances are unique to him, and he's dealing with a lot.  (I'm sorry if I'm being cryptic about this, but it concerns a subject that I don't discuss on social media.) 
    Unfortunately, Jason's comments can sometimes invite abuse, often because they can appear abusive in themselves, as Gaby pointed out to me last night.  But when I can help it, I don't intend to let anyone abuse him.  If one wants to argue the merits of his comment, that's perfectly alright, and you are certainly welcome to ridicule his poor spelling and grammar, but remember, my finger hovers over the delete button, and I can make it all go away.

Freedom, And Those Who Oppose It

Monday afternoon, I went to the local craft store to buy some paint brushes for a model I'm working on.  A young lady I know works in that department, and she asked me how I was doing.  I said, "Fantastic.  My marriage is recognised in the state where I live, my husband is no longer an illegal alien, we both have jobs and health insurance--I feel freer than I've felt in my whole life."
    "Feels good, doesn't it," she said.
    "Absolutely."

Monday morning, the Supreme Court announced that they had declined to hear the appeal from the 10th Circuit Court, effectively making same-sex marriage legal in Oklahoma and four other states.  Among my friends there was much rejoicing.  My friend Michael posted, "Gay marriage is now legal in Oklahoma. Words cannot express my happiness for this moment and my thanks goes out to my friends in Tulsa who pushed hard for this moment. We weren't state #50 for this to happen!!!"
    Not everyone shared in that jubilation, however.  Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin issued her official response later that day.

“The people of Oklahoma have the right to determine how marriage is defined. In 2004, Oklahomans exercised that right, voting by a margin of 3-1 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

“The will of the people has now been overridden by unelected federal justices, accountable to no one. That is both undemocratic and a violation of states’ rights. Rather than allowing states to make their own policies that reflect the values and views of their residents, federal judges have inserted themselves into a state issue to pursue their own agendas.

“Today’s decision has been cast by the media as a victory for gay rights. What has been ignored, however, is the right of Oklahomans – and Americans in every state – to write their own laws and govern themselves as they see fit. Those rights have once again been trampled by an arrogant, out-of -control federal government that wants to substitute Oklahoma values with Washington, D.C. values.”

 Now, I can't say that I'm actually sure that Governor Fallin believes her statement.  Certainly from a legal and historical perspective it makes no sense.  Notice that she's still talking about a vote that took place ten years ago. Since then, attitudes have shifted, and demographics have changed--maybe not enough to move Oklahoma into the pro-civil rights column, but today's 27-year-olds were not old enough to vote back then.  But then, she also never explains why we were voting on basic civil and human rights to begin with, except for that tired old canard about the "definition of marriage." 
It's funny to me that she tries to make the point that the Supreme Court Justices are "unelected."  Of course they are unelected.  If they had been elected,  they would be basing their decisions on the will of likely voters instead of the one thing they are supposed to be accountable to: the US Constitution.  Furthermore, "all U.S. state constitutions are subject to federal judicial review; any provision can be nullified if it conflicts with the US Constitution."*  In fact, Governor Fallin herself swore to uphold the Constitution in her Oath of Office.  And whether she likes it or not, the 14th Amendment is a part of the US Constitution, and has been for 39 years longer than Oklahoma has been a state.
    But in one way, her statement makes a lot of sense:  she's up for re-election, and she's calculating that saying something like this in a state as conservative as Oklahoma will get her a lot of votes.  She's probably right.

    In Washington DC, Ted Cruz also had something to say.

     "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

Okay, that was actually someone else, but the spirit was just the same. What he actually said was:

“...This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures..."

This is, of course, a ridiculous statement, as I'm sure he knows.  Most Federal and state courts in the US have the power of judicial revue, and have had since 1803.  It's their job.  It's what they do.

“It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment..."

The Supreme Court is not implying that, or anything else.  They, and all the courts that the case has gone through, are stating explicitly that, because of the 14th Amendment, you cannot create one set of laws for one kind of people and another set of laws for another kind of people if all of those people are US citizens, and that you can't create laws that rob a certain subset of people of their basic civil and human rights based simply on who they are.  And this "definition of marriage" crap doesn't change that.

“...Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws."

The US Constitution is a document that protects the liberties of the individual, and here he is wanting to add an amendment that will take away liberties from some based on who they are.  And I have friends who agree with him.  When I posted an article about this on Facebook, one friend responded, "Good I hope does take action. I support him 100%. He actually has some backbone!"  I pointed out that that could also be said of Orval Faubus and George Wallace.
But I don't believe that it's "backbone" that he has; what he has is a lot of cynicism.  He knows that in the unlikely event that his bill makes it out of committee, it would never be approved by the American public.  He's taking advantage of the ignorance and indignation of his constituents, banking on their belief that these things will change.  But the evolution of America has always been toward liberty and freedom, sometimes in halting jerky steps, frequently with seemingly insurmountable obstacles, but always managing to move forward somehow. 
    "Liberty and justice for all" is not just a motto; it's our destiny.