| |
A Nation of Fools
By Peary Perry
“I love my wife…but oh, you kid !!!”
California, that great state perched on the
precipice of the continental divide and in
danger of falling off into the sea (not a
bad thing?) has once again produced landmark
legislation for the rest of us.
We’ve always heard that the old saw that ‘as
California goes…so goes the nation.’
If that’s true, then heaven help us…as we
are all doomed.
As you may recall the voters (November 2008)
in that state voted 52.5% to 47.5% to toss
out same-sex marriages on it’s head and keep
the institute of marriage as a union between
a man and a woman. Adam and Eve, not Adam
and Steve, if you will. Opponents of the ban
argue that they (Adam and Steve) need to
have the same equal protection under the law
as straight (Man/woman) relationships.
Of course, this is California and even
though 7,000,000 citizens voted in support
of the bill, we now have a federal judge who
has decided that ‘father knows best.’
Basically in his 136 page opinion he told
supporting voters to go to hell. He knows
what’s best for the state; you measly voters
don’t have a clue, back to the mines.
The beatings will continue until morale
picks up.
Thankfully, his ruling was place on hold by
a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals in San Francisco on August 16. This
court reinstated a stay on the ruling while
the appeals case is heard. Another
three-member appeals panel will hear the
case during the week of December 6 after
deadlines were moved up to November 1 for
both sides to file their written arguments.
In looking ahead and thinking about the
ramifications of what can happen if indeed
the ban is thrown out and Adam can indeed
legally marry Steve, what kind of a country
will this produce for us? First off over 30
states have marriage defined as between a
man and a woman in their constitutions. So,
if that provision goes out the window then I
would predict that we shall soon see the
following;
Child pornography becomes legal and socially
acceptable. If we change the existing
marriage laws, how can a court rationally
decide that someone hung up on watching
kiddie porn is harming anyone? Isn’t that
also unconstitutional? Doesn’t a five or six
year old child have any rights? Why place
any age limits on any of this? As long as no
one get hurt or complains, what harm is
there? Live and let live as the liberals
would say.
Do you see where I’m going?
You talk about a slippery slope; this has to
be one of the greatest.
But hold on, suppose I’m not inclined to
want to share my life with another human
being. Suppose I want to marry ….say a
chicken or leave my fortune to my pet
goldfish. I know that sounds weird, but what
if I wanted to do so? Don’t animals and fish
have feelings?
PETA thinks so…..so I’m curious… where would
they weigh in on the argument that a dog
might be man’s best friend? Would animal
rights groups come to the aid of victims
(kitties and mice) of spousal abuse? Should
the state provide legal representation to
those unfortunate animals and creatures who
cannot afford to speak (quack, meow or bark)
for themselves in court? Once married how
would anyone know if Lassie wanted a
divorce? Trigger might be able to paw
certain things but was he smart enough to
understand fidelity?
Dr. Doolittle where are you now that we need
you?
The sad thing in this scenario is that laws
can be made and broken from a judicial
bench. In spite of what the will of the
people may decide, one man can take it upon
himself to set those opinions aside and
overturn the wishes of the population. He
thinks he knows better and is wiser than
those in his state.
The voice of the people in this instance
mean nothing, just words on the wind.
Shame.
|
|
Archives .
Biography .
Books .
Editors Sign Up Form .
Letters from North America
Nation of Fools . Newspapers
.
Bet You Didn't Know .
Recipes .
Send Your Comments to Peary .
Subscribe to Feed
|
