If you crossed the international dateline on your birthday, would you still get presents?
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Mosque on Ground Zero
Shorter than yesterday's post, but still political. Apparently, Barack Obama is now openly supporting the proposed Mosque near "Ground Zero" of the World Trade Center attacks. Good.
I considered a couple articles to link to, but instead, I'm just writing two or three points of my own. First, good for President Obama to stand up and openly support someone he's been accused of secretly supporting since before he was elected (well, not exactly the same group, because these aren't terrorist Muslims, but peaceful ones). Second, as a couple of the articles I've read confirm, this is not a moral attack on the families of the WTC victims–the proposed Mosque is not even on Ground Zero, but only nearby. Third, while I do not believe Islam is correct, I respect their beliefs. I hope one day they find the truth of Christianity. But how are they supposed to find it, when we as Christians are turning our backs, and not the other cheek?
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Democracy, Equality, Cunning
I've been thinking. Yeah, I know: not something many people like me to say.
When I woke up, someone had sent me THIS LINK
I skimmed the article first and read the basics: Prop 8 has not only been overturned, but may not be allowed to be appealed, because the proponents of Prop 8 had not been the ones sued, but Schwarzenegger. My immediate thought was what the article later suggested: if they can't appeal the ruling, they could appeal the grounds for the trial itself.
A word now on the Prop 8 ruling itself: the voters of California voted and banned gay marriage. A judge told them it would take a constitutional amendment and overturned the law. Prop 8 was that amendment, which also passed by popular vote. Again, the minority took it to a judge and have had it overturned. If it stands, it will, undoubtedly, be a great triumph for equality in California. By the same token, however, it will be a terrible blow against democracy. The courts do not have the authority to settle this issue, but continue to act as though they do. As I've said before, I'm opposed to the government having anything to do with marriage - it's none of their business. But the court doesn't get to decide that.
Back to the article itself. When I read some months back that the suit against Prop 8 was targeting the governor and not its proponents, I thought it was stupid. Not that it was more likely to fail because of its stupidity, but it was pretty clear that Arnold wasn't responsible for the amendment.
This article, however, sheds new light. Schwarzy didn't defend Prop 8, and because the suit that struck it down wasn't against its proponents, it could not be easily appealed. This could have been the plan from the beginning (and no, I'm not positing a conspiracy, just a phenomenally well-planned legal battle).
Anyway: that's what I thought about this morning.
When I woke up, someone had sent me THIS LINK
I skimmed the article first and read the basics: Prop 8 has not only been overturned, but may not be allowed to be appealed, because the proponents of Prop 8 had not been the ones sued, but Schwarzenegger. My immediate thought was what the article later suggested: if they can't appeal the ruling, they could appeal the grounds for the trial itself.
A word now on the Prop 8 ruling itself: the voters of California voted and banned gay marriage. A judge told them it would take a constitutional amendment and overturned the law. Prop 8 was that amendment, which also passed by popular vote. Again, the minority took it to a judge and have had it overturned. If it stands, it will, undoubtedly, be a great triumph for equality in California. By the same token, however, it will be a terrible blow against democracy. The courts do not have the authority to settle this issue, but continue to act as though they do. As I've said before, I'm opposed to the government having anything to do with marriage - it's none of their business. But the court doesn't get to decide that.
Back to the article itself. When I read some months back that the suit against Prop 8 was targeting the governor and not its proponents, I thought it was stupid. Not that it was more likely to fail because of its stupidity, but it was pretty clear that Arnold wasn't responsible for the amendment.
This article, however, sheds new light. Schwarzy didn't defend Prop 8, and because the suit that struck it down wasn't against its proponents, it could not be easily appealed. This could have been the plan from the beginning (and no, I'm not positing a conspiracy, just a phenomenally well-planned legal battle).
Anyway: that's what I thought about this morning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)