Blue State
Not so democratic after all. Howie Carr on the unpopularity of popular votes in Massachusetts, and how three years after four judges’ creative interpretation of the state constitution upended 100,000-odd years of human culture, 6,000-or-so years of civilization and 400 years of American society,* the state legislature croaked an effort to put the issue in front of the voters.
Howie, focused on the question of quid pro quos, doesn’t mention the fact that in repeated constitutional conventions over the past three years, before they had bought and strongarmed the votes they needed to croak the ballot measure, the legislative leadership adjourned without allowing a vote on whether to put this question on the ballot.
* Western civilization has not come to an end in the last three years. As is always the case with social engineering/experimentation, it’s being conducted on a narrow and highly debatable question of rights that ignores or denies potential consequences and the rights of others. Gay marriage advocates insist their crusade does not open the door to polygamy, incest or the notorious hypothetical of a man who wants to marry his dog. The Massachusetts constitution refers to marriage as being between two people, it not being deemed necessary two centuries ago to be more specific, and state law specifically outlaws incest. However, in an anything-goes society, sooner or later anything goes, and it is only a matter of time before the push starts from supporters of relatively mainstream practices such as polygamy** and, this being America, the fringe incest and bestiality cases. Gay marriage advocates will have to decide where they want to draw the line and start discriminating, who’s normal and who’s beyond the pale. They already have indicated in their rhetoric that they will discriminate against polygamy, incest and bestiality.
The issue is always stated the right of people to live as they choose and equal rights, which is fine, but rarely the subsequent consequences of marriage, tax, education and adoption policies that are often narrowly designed to shape and theoretically improve society, and ultimately involve privileges and not rights.
Gay lifestyles have been actively pushed in some Massachusetts schools, which has raised controversy. Is anyone actively pushing heterosexual marriage and the destructive qualities of divorce? I don’t know. Heterosexual marriage has been shown to be good for people and society. Married people are healthier, wealthier and generally more satisfied, which has to be good for society. Maybe the same is true for gay marriage. I don’t know. We haven’t had the public debate. The Massachusetts Legislature and the advocates of gay marriage don’t want us to. They said they wanted to spare us an 18-month circus, but denied us the right to ask questions.
Gay adoption was introduced administratively under Dukakis in Massachusetts. Advocates point to happy families and the difficulty of finding good adoptive families. OK, so what are the effects of imposing a marginal, controversial lifestyle on a child who has no choice in the matter? Just asking.
On the other hand, if gay marriage advocates, now that they’ve had their way, put their considerable resources into pushing for tax policy that benefits families with a stay-at-home parent raising the kids the way tax policy currently benefits people who put their kids in daycare, that could be a positive societal outcome from all of this.
Moving on from marriage, there is the matter of legally recognizing gender choices that defy biology, and we’ve already seen authorities in New York give blanket approval to anyone who claims to be a woman, regardless of the state of his plumbing, to use the public restroom of his choice, while another effort seeks to allow people who are not biologically constituted according to their preference, to be able to alter their birth certificates to reflect their delusion. I guess that’s OK, and not at all rife with potential for abuse by predatory perverts or people seeking to conceal their identities for criminal purposes.
The military’s Clintonian don’t-ask, don’t-tell policy is heavily criticized and no doubt in many cases has been heavy-handedly applied. There are undoubtedly heroic gays who have served in the military, and there is a legitimate debate about how disruptive open homosexuality will be in combat units. But you always have to ask yourself, what’s next. Eliminate the policy, and how long before some GI Joe decides he wants to be GI Jane? Maybe even while deployed in, say, a combat unit in Iraq. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Again, just asking. Though even asking, for some people, makes me a homophobic bigot.
** Muslims, Thai Buddhists and traditionalist Mormons for example consider polygamy historically and in many cases currently normal.
Topics: pols
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:52 am Comments (4) on Friday, June 15, 2007
4 Responses to “Blue State”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
So they wish to “spare” adults the debate. Doesn’t that just say it all? They want to treat us all like children who properly require shelter from those things they are too young to understand. The problem is that they end up treating adults like children and children like adults.
I have not abdicated my responsibility to think. I have not turned my brain over to others.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Opps. I didn’t mean to hit the button.
What they mean is that they want to be spared the responsibility to hear their constituents. They prefer to act like the petty dictators they are.
June 15th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
“Ve know vat is bezt for you!”
/heavy German accent.
June 15th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
The effect of living in a 1 party state