I was recently reading Dan Savage’s book Skipping Towards Gomorrah. In it, he points out the curious fact that people who are strong proponents of Amendments 1 or 2 of the Bill of Rights are usually just proponents of the one and never the twain shall meet.
Reminded me of an argument (re gay marriage) I was having a long while ago on Watchblog:
Me: “If you read my posts about this issue, I never said that separation of church and state was specifically quoted in the Constitution. What I did say was that 1) a marriage ban 'is something that should not be engrained in the Constitution' and 2) that the Constitution promised equality.
However, I will point out that it is widely recognized that the First Amendment as well as Article VI, Section III point to a, well, I cannot say it better than Thomas Jefferson, 'a wall of separation between Church & State.' See his 1802 Letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Or you can read his original draft which goes a bit further.”
Dude: “I know you did not say seperation [sic] between church and state are in the Constitution. In fact, that meaning was put into place by liberal judges who interpret but do not respect the Constitution. I was only saying that it is not a valid arguement [sic] to use on this issue. If you are going to respect the Danbury address as meaning that people can be fired for speaking about and expressing their love for God in public places, like happens in todays [sic] USA, then you must surely respect that the founding fathers also said 'all' citizens have a duty and a right to keep and bear arms.”
Me: “Why isn't it a valid argument? Was Thomas Jefferson a judge? Why are you arguing with me, when it seems to me, from the rest of your recent post, that we agree?”
Dude: “I am by no means arguing with you. Simply stating that the seperation [sic] of church and state reference you made does not hold water. It is just another opening for the oppossing [sic] side to use against your arguement [sic]. If you agree that we should use Jeffersons [sic] thoughts at Dansbury, then you must be willing to use his thoughts about arms.”
Me: “I do agree with Jefferson on the right to bear arms, so what's your point?”
I’m by no means a Constitutional Scholar, but isn’t this strange? On the one hand, my support of the Jeffersonian interpretation of Amendment 1 places me square in the liberal-lefty (insert own epithet here) arena. And on the other, my support of the, yes, Jeffersonian interpretation of Amendment 2 places me in the middle of the right-wing crazy (more insults) camp.
Okay, I know, I might be a Libertarian if I were less cynical. But does this mean the Big Two have abandoned holding true to the complete Constitution? Have they decided to pick and choose which parts suit them – much like people do with religion – and start slinging around crap like “liberal judges” and “partisan hacks”?
If so, shouldn’t we all start thinking more realistically about third parties and independents? Shouldn't we stop saying, “We don’t have options.”? Personally, I’m sick to death with people voting for the lesser of two evils. Get involved. Have effing convictions and stick to them. Stop letting fanatics run this country and its dialogue.
Please?
Comments