The proposed constitutional amendment to permit Congress to ban flag burning, and probably other desecratory acts, has been defeated in the Senate. Hallelujah! I’m not one who agrees with flag burning. Along with religious symbols, flags, although just symbols, should be respected and not desecrated.
I didn’t like it when Andres Serrano immersed that crucifix in a beaker of his own urine and displayed a picture of it called ‘Piss Christ’ but I had to chalk it off to his artistic freedom while I resisted the urge to go punch him in the mouth. The big gripe with the whole fiasco was that Serrano had received a National Endowment for The Arts grant for that dubious work of art.
Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of whether we should be cluttering the Constitution with such minutiae, one of the problems with any legislation would be how to define desecration. In many cases, it would very difficult to prove intent, a crux of any such law.
There would be a question of what would fall under its scope. Would it include throwing away flags embossed napkins, such as are distributed at many patriotic events such as VFW dinners? And if not, why not? If you’re going to prosecute some protestors for burning flags, then how can you exempt these others? If you argue intent, then you place in the hands of prosecutors the option of interpreting law and applying it, a sure fire recipe for further abuse of power by a government already drunk with power.
Then we do have the question of constitutional clutter. Over the past thirty years or so we have seen the Equal Rights Amendment barely miss ratification. There have been proposals for a balanced budget amendment, an amendment to clarify The Second Amendment and one to repeal it, one to permit school prayer, one to guarantee the use of the word God in The Pledge of Allegiance and the national motto, campaign spending amendments and the list goes on. All told 27 have been ratified and one, the Twenty First, repealed the Eighteenth. The 101st Congress proposed 214 and since then another 642 have been proposed. If only 3 per cent of them had been passed and ratified we might no longer have a republic.
Homosexual marriage has been at the forefront of the so-called culture wars. In San Francisco and New Paltz, New York, these marriages have been performed. The most successful has been in Massachusetts where the Supreme Court ruled that the state had to allow them.
Homosexual activists now hope that they can take these marriages that are legal in Massachusetts and force the other states to accept them. This would be via Article IV, Section One which states, ‘Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.’ I don’t think that’s exactly what The Founding Fathers had planned.
I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me, this is a minefield for all, but opponents more so than the activists. A good argument can be made that they are not being treated equally under the law.
So now, how do the ‘conservatives’ respond? Why with proposed state constitutional amendments to define marriage as between a man and a woman. There’s one proposed here in Florida and there was even a United States Constitutional amendment proposed during the 108th Congress. Once again, I don’t think this is a good idea, but not because I favor or oppose homosexual marriage. It’s wrong because government shouldn’t even be involved in marriage.
Marriage should be a private contract, like any other. If two people want to enter into such an arrangement, they should be free to do it. They can have it under any aegis they so choose. It could be a religious body, a fraternal or social group such as the Kiwanis, Elks or even the Masons. If some of them refuse to allow homosexual marriage, a group of homosexuals could start their own religion or group that does. This could apply to any group. Thus, government is rid of a lot of headaches and out of another religious function. Simple but unlikely. Government never gives up power.
I believe that homosexual acts are a perversion of nature. They defeat the purpose of the act, to procreate. However, I don’t think these people should be discriminated against and most importantly, I don’t think they should be subjected to any harm.
I remember a patient of mine who was homosexual. He was so obvious as to be a caricature but he was one of the kindest people I ever met. If you showed him the simplest act of kindness, he’d do anything for you.
One night, some of the local studs in Providence went out on a fag bash and Tom happened to be in their way. He was in the hospital for a long time. It should raise some questions as to exactly how certain those thugs were of their own sexuality.
But I do shudder at what unintended consequences await the implementation of some of these proposed amendments. Conservatives should be most wary, given how The Constitution has been mauled by ACLU types, yet they persist in these dangerous ventures.
Through all of this, I have been impressed with the anger and even hatred that seems to motivate so many of the so-called Christian Right who are involved in these efforts. I wonder when someone holds up a sign, ‘God Hates Fags’.
My God doesn’t hate anyone and hate wasn’t Christ’s message. Jesus only tried to show us the way. It was up to us to follow but it was our choice.
And Jesus was done in by politics and he knew it was going to happen. He said render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. It was the politicians and those involved with government who killed him. His kingdom was definitely not of this world.
And I think that bringing his message to the world through government is the surest way to kill it. At the same time, the surest way to kill Christ’s message is by expanding government into all of our affairs where Christ should be.
I think we’d be well advised to remember all of this.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”