Constitutional Amendments & Keith Olbermann

I sympathise greatly with the protests against the passage of Prop 8 in California, but I also cannot help but think that it amounts to little, given the nature of the policy regarding constitutional amendments in California.  Somebody did bring to my attention that the protests keep the issue on the front scene and in the media, thus raising awareness, so I applaud those protesting.  At the same time, I have also been thinking about the way constitutional amendments can pass and be enacted in California.  

One of the main principles of a constitution, and especially one like the Constitution of the United States, is to protect the minority from the wrath of the majority.  Constitutions clearly outline the rights and privileges to which all citizens are entitled, so as to prevent reprisals during alternations of power between political and/or social factions.  I believe it is therefore unconstitutional to pass an amendment through a plebiscite—as was done in the case of Proposition 8 in California—and thus impose the judgment of a majority on the minority; and it becomes an even greater fault when this judgment deprives the said minority of equal rights and privileges under the Law, as is manifestly the case with the same Proposition and constitutional amendment derived from it.

This whole process of constitutional amendments by referendums is faulty and deserves reconsideration.  I do know I'm just talking in the air about this and nothing will be done, but I had to share my two cents.

On a related note, here is Keith Olbermann at the most emotional I have seen him.  Please share.  He has quite a few sensible things to say.

A new New Deal?

OK, OK, I know I have strong Socialistic tendencies and am therefore biased, but what's wrong with government intervening to help revive the economy?  The economy has been running free for years now (and we all see where we are because of it) and calling government involvement at this point intrusion or control is unjust; on the contrary, it's a necessary aid that carries with it great promise for the welfare of the American and global economy.  By doing this, the government will preserve the integrity of the country and the well-being of the people, and isn't that the government's main reason for being?

On the same note, I'm merely an amateur historian and not at all an economist, but, in my simplistic way of thinking, I cannot help but consider the circumstances in which the New Deal came about and what it did to provide jobs for Americans.  We are presently faced with a very similar sharp downturn in the economy, with a failing infrastructure, and with energy challenges, all of which provide the same canvas for government projects as in 1932.  

• Government involvement at this stage will boost the morale of the people and engage them in the efforts to keep the economy on its feet;
• infrastructure projects on a national level will provide the work that many highways, bridges, ports, railways, etc. need around the country, while also strengthening our defense and creating jobs that will employ those who are currently losing jobs; 
• and the steps toward greener and reusable energy on a national level (congruous to the need for electrification in the 1930s) can similarly create jobs and simultaneously achieve one of the greatest challenges facing the nation today.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be so adverse to a new New Deal.

By Jove, he's done it!

For the longest time, I half-seriously-half-jokingly claimed that the first time America would elect a non-male or non-white president, they would go all the way and elect a black lesbian.  Barack Obama has proved me wrong.  I am happy he has.

I hold these truths to be self-evident...

Reflections.

On Proposition 4

As put forth on the ballot, this measure would change California's Constitution to prohibit 'abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent, legal guardian, or, in limited cases, substitute adult relative.'  Although the measure provides an exception in case of emergency or pre-dating parental waiver, it does not take into consideration one possible end to this situation:  that a parent may not provide a consent for abortion and the resulting scenario would still leave the girl in question carrying that child for the duration of a pregnancy.  Nine months is a long time.  It's about the length of an academic year.  But this is not so much a question of time and inconvenience as it is a question of the invasion of a girl's body for a period of nine months without any consideration for her rights as an individual, albeit a minor.

I do indeed recognise that she would be a minor and legally under the parents'/guardians' tutelage, but I also cannot help but think of the consequences that such a pregnancy would have on her on a physical, social, and psychological level.  I concede that it is a delicate issue when the maturity of a girl is in question, especially in today's well-nourished world (at least in the U.S.) where girls are reaching puberty as early as the age of nine or ten.  But being fertile does not mean being ready to carry a child.  No one will question that at such a young age the girl is still growing herself, and a pregnancy and the hormonal and physical aspects that accompany it will inflict irreversible damage on her growth, bone structure, and perhaps internal organs.  Tantamount to this is her emotional and psychological welfare and it ought to be considered just as carefully.

With parents guided by religious convictions or deeply entrenched moral dictates, it is obvious that these consequences would not cross their minds quite easily.  The result would be devastating for the girl carrying the child.  I do recognise the adverse effects of abortion as well.  That is why I consider it an evil, but a necessary evil; and I do realise that this right has been and is being abused by certain women when it is used as the only means of contraception, but this is no excuse for punishing those other girls who unwittingly find themselves in the difficult position of being pregnant during their teenage years.  Moreover, it is in no way justified when one considers that by preventing abortion one invades another woman's body, her days, her emotions, her person.  Consider the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure of the person, not only of property.

Instead of passing such laws (in a Constitution of all places!) the state should do a better job in educating young people about sex and its consequences.  We are living at a time where 'abstinence only' is not a viable option of contraception, despite what many may think, and abortion still remains necessary, more often because of ignorance and myths that still surround the sexual act as means of reproduction.  At the same time, sexually active individuals, including males but especially females, ought not to rely on abortion as a contraceptive, but only as a last resort.  I have always taken this stance and will continue to do so.

On Proposition 8

This Proposition, if passed, would amend the Constitution in the state of California to prevent the right of individuals to be bound in same-sex marriages, in other words, it would define 'marriage' as a union between a man and a woman.  Where do I start with this one...?

First, let me state that same-sex marriage, as it currently exists in California and Massachusetts, does not in any way obligate religious groups and authorities to recognise it as such.  Consequently, those who purport that such marriages go against the will of god or any other religious canon should sit still in their places and stop fulminating such nonsense—it is inapposite.  Marriage, as it is being sought by same-sex couples, demands no religious connotation, legitimation, or validation.  It is merely a union of two citizens in the eyes of the law for fiscal, guardianship, hereditary, visitation, and other similar civic rights.  This is the only way to provide the equality that the Constitution guarantees to all individuals.  To prohibit it is unconstitutional.  That those two citizens of legal age willing to commit to one another happen to be of the same sex is and should be immaterial.  That the government of the United States or any state therein should recognise and respect such a union and consider it as marriage in equal rights to heterosexual couples, therefore, goes without saying.

Secondly, I feel I should address the question of love.  Few individuals would seriously commit to one another in a covenant (since I'm reading Hobbes) in the eyes of the law if they had no love between them.  To deny such union is to attack the existence of love between those persons.  I realise that many still consider homosexuality a choice and would quickly remind everybody that 'homosexuals' can choose to love and have a marriage with someone of the opposite sex, but should this matter when genuine love is concerned?  Who are you to question the sincerity of someone's love when it is thusly declared by them, be it for the same or for the opposite sex?  And what are you saying about marriage as you presently view it when you disregard these elements of love, commitment, lifelong loyalty in what others seek to call marriage?  And do you also consider heterosexual marriage to be so weak as not to be able to survive in a world where homosexual marriage also exists?  Rethink your arguments.

Thirdly, the argument of procreation as the paramount reason for marriage becomes obsolete when one considers infertile couples, including those who, by nature, cannot have children, as well as individuals beyond a reproductive age.  Should we, then, take away these individuals' right to marry because their marriage will not produce children?

Fourthly, and more importantly, people need to get over themselves.  They are not the guardians of tradition and no one requires them to be.  Times are changing.  The World and the United States are not as they were two, five, or 232 years ago.  And yet it is 232 years ago that I find body and strength for these arguments for equality.  232 years ago, a Declaration of Independence written by a group of enlightened Americans stated the following:  

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Except for the fancy first S in 'Happiness,' this declaration remains perennial and ought to be upheld as an enlightened ideal, as an American ideal that we can always faithfully follow.

So when you go out and vote tomorrow, Californians, please vote NO on Proposition 4 and NO on Proposition 8.  Posterity will thank you.  I thank you.

Our Father who art in Heaven—stay there...

I have been following this presidential election more closely than any other of its calibre in my life for the simple reason that, for the first time, I will get to vote in it this year.  Despite the back-and-forth diatribes made ever more annoying by the televised ads and by the internet; and despite the annoyance that Palin's person brings to me personally, there is something that gives me a mild satisfaction about how this campaign has unfolded on both sides:  the minor role played by religion.

I was glad to see that neither of the candidates mentioned god in his speeches beyond making it known that they were men of god or beyond the iteration of slogans and clichés such as 'God bless America.'  This has been the case for the two presidential nominees and for Biden, yet Palin has been much more unabashed about her fundamental Christian beliefs and more than suggestive about bringing those convictions in her executive policy-making, should she (___ forbid!) find herself in the White House or in the Oval Office.  Perhaps this side of hers that she has shown in her speeches and interviews is part of the reason why I dislike her as much as I do.  I cannot help but see the fundamentalist bigot resurface in her when words like 'Muslim,' 'science,' or 'gay' come up in conversations, interviews, or questions.  In addition, she is the one who, more often than others, has brought up the issue of religion, specifically by constantly questioning Obama's faith at her rallies, only to then rejoice in and be invigorated by the bigoted, racist, xenophobic, ignorant response of the crowd.  She knows how to arouse such a mob and she just nods repeatedly at the end of such statements.  I find that unforgivable in a figure that seeks election to an executive office.

I apologise for digressing for a moment.  It's just that the woman annoys me a great deal and there is a lot of bile I can spill on her.  Returning to my previous point, I would like to add that I retain the hope that in an Obama administration religion will again take a back seat and be there only to guide him as a person and not as President of the United States and much less as an ideal in the making of long-term policies.  

At the same time, I cannot help but be wary of what is inevitably going to come:  a revival of extreme right-wing 'values' justified and energised by fundamental Christian values and spearheaded in part by... you guessed it—Sarah Palin.  She will not be the only one, however; she will merely be one of the representative figures who, with fundamental religion as a justifier, will appeal to the basest and ugliest aspects of human nature that will further divide this country and engender more divisiveness.  That is why I fear that in four years the presidential election will be quite different from this year's and the punches out of the right wing will be coordinated by staunch fundamentalists who—to my chagrin and to their credit—have proved in the past that they can revive themselves and a political party through a grassroots movement.  

The only remedy to that situation would be a strong and prosperous Obama-Biden administration that will revive the economy, give a satisfactory solution to our wars overseas (while refraining from starting others), restore hope among Americans, de-vilify our image in the world, dispel all doubts that Democrats are weak in defense and prove the fallacy of the equation LIBERAL = HIGH TAXES = REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH = SOCIALIST = COMMIE = ATHEIST = IMMORAL = EVIL.  

I am tired of this line of (il)logic....