Today, the Supreme Court handed down Lawrence vs Texas, a decision finally overturning Bowers vs Hardwick and making sodomy laws regarding consenting adults invalid.
Basically, the majority opinion says that the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment ("nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;") has been interpreted to mean "right to life, liberty and property", and "liberty" includes consensual sex.
Justice O'Conner has a partially concurring opinion that basically says that's wrong, and Bowers should not be reversed, but because Texas discriminates against homosexuals, it violates the "equal protection of the laws" that comes right after the due process clause and the Texas law alone should be struck down.
Scalia dissents, essentially arguing that the laws come under "rational basis" scrutiny, that there is a legitimate state interest in legislating morality, and thus these laws are not unconstitutional --- undesirable maybe, not not unconstitutional. He then takes the court to task for creating a new right when it should be left to the legislative bodies to decide when society is ready to accept a change in the moral code and lists some things that this ruling will allow under similar arguments, namely gay marriage.
He also dissents with Justice O'Connor, arguing that because the law bans both male-male and female-female sexual acts, it does not violate the equal protection clause.
My Opinion
----------
Well, I hope he's right about what this ruling allows --- most of the things he lists as being allowed by these arguments are things that *should* be allowed, and in fact, I would argue that in a truly free society, the moral code *cannot* be legislated. Further, for the vast majority of people, the moral code is based on religious principles, and so legislating the moral code violates the separation of church and state.
As for the opinions, first off: Scalia is laughably wrong about the equal protection clause. He essentially says that because Gay men and Lesbians are treated the same, there's no problem, but he's left out 90% of the population in his comparison. He argues that its only the specific acts that are banned, but the equal protection clause applies to people, and that means gay men, Lesbians and straight couples. Clearly, in Texas, gay men and Lesbians are *not* treated the same as straight couples. And yes, the same argument applies to marriage. Scalia himself makes many of the arguments on that that the gay community has for years.
While I am glad that sodomy laws have been struct down, I do think it's unfortunate that it was done in the way it was. I do agree with Scalia that the court is twisting the constitution to rationalize their decision, because the "due process" clause merely says you have to follow the rules, whatever they are when you limit someone's freedom. A lot more has been read into that than should be, I think. In fact, in Bowers, they warned about exactly that:
Nor are we inclined to take a more expansive view of our authority to discover new fundamental rights imbedded in the Due Process Clause. The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution. That this is so was painfully demonstrated by the face-off between the Executive and the Court in the 1930's, which resulted in the repudiation [478 U.S. 186, 195] of much of the substantive gloss that the Court had placed on the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
The fact is, this country was founded on the principle that:
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.
The founding fathers put the rights they were fighting for into the constitution, and specifically in the Bill of Rights, including freedom of religion, but noted in the 9th amendment that it was not a complete catalog of them.
The very first thing in the Bill of Rights, is this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
I think a key point here is that this implies freedom *from* religion as well --- that's rather the point of the "separation of church and state" interpretation as well. If you codify one or more religion's morality into law, you've effectively state sanctioned those religions over the rest. Given that most opposition to homosexuality is taken from a religious perspective, I think the 1rst Amendment should be the primary weapon against anti-gay laws.
But more generally, this country seems to have a serious case of hypocrisy when it comes to freedom: most people seem to want the freedom to do what they want, *including* telling other people what they can do. These people completely don't get the entire concept of freedom. The freedom to be and do only what other people approve of is *NOT* freedom.
Put another way, freedom has absolutely no meaning unless you apply it to something you don't approve of.
This means that if someone has the authority to say two men can't marry, they are not free.
If someone has the authority to say a man can't marry five women, they are not free.
If someone has the authority to say a group of people can't form a church that limits its membership to those willing to restrict themselves to a more rigid set of rules, they are are not free.
In a free society, the right of government to limit freedom is to keep one group of people from interfering with another group's freedom, or to arbitrate when there is a conflict. And "conflict" does not mean "they're limiting our freedom simply by exercising theirs".
Clearly, we have a long way to go before we will have a society that truly respects the concept of freedom.
...per the discussion of O.W.L.'s on page 311. It was good, but a
little long winded --- I think it could have been a 600 page book instead
of a 900 page book. Rather a lot of "no one understands" whining that
I was really hoping was due to, and in fact at one point it was hinted at,
someone feeding Harry drugs or that it was his link to "Lord Thingy" ;-)
But no, Harry was just acting a lot like I probably would have at that
age, under the circumstances (the angry part, not the hero part, though
he's really not much of a hero in this book). I was close enough as it
was.
It is a very dark book --- bad things are happening at Hogwarts, and it's
not fun to see them happen, and actually, that's another disappointment.
One can find parallels to some of the directions current political events
are taking in Hogwarts, but it essentially takes a superhero with a band
of loyal followers to set things right, which doesn't give readers a
sense of empowerment to set things right that they see are wrong in the
real world. Granted, I doubt J.K. Rowling had any political agenda at all
in mind writing this, but I would still have liked to see a stronger moral
stance on getting every day people to not accept injustices. Perhaps I'm
still just as hot-headed as Harry though, as I think one of the morals of
this book could be "fools rush in".
To some extent, there was a bit of fight in a couple of the characters,
but having them essentially turn into terrorists, albeit a realistic
turn for these characters, is probably not a good example (not that anyone
would consider them a good example in the first place ;-) ). At least
the stuff they pulled was more in the prank category than dangerous, and
they were careful not to interfere with the students exams...
The DA would have been a good place to organize a response, with some
backing from the Order, but it would have been a far different book, and
probably not relevant to the overall story arc she's working on. I did
expect the DA to figure more significantly in the ending, though, rather
than just providing plausibility for some of the actions in it.
It's possible that this book is just setting things up for the next one,
as the centaur prophecy certainly indicates more is coming, but on the
other hand, the ending appeared to wrap too much for that prophecy to
come true without a lot more bad stuff happening. On the third hand, with
everyone on the wrong side in this book, this ending was needed to keep the
bad guys from having too strong a hand.
One good thing is that we do learn various things about several characters,
but even so, in a book this thick, we should have learned more than we did.
A lot of what we learn about Harry is only at the end. One of them, at
least, is why he keeps getting sent back to the Dursley's by people who
should know better and care.
Overall, it just felt like a slow ramp to a quick ending.
Even so, it was a good read and I can't wait to see where she goes with
it...
Sooo, when's the next one due? (yes, I know there's no set date)
I don't know why, but last night I remembered a Les Crane song I heard as a teen, and it's something I wish more parents took into account. For that matter, it probably applies to how one relates to other adults as well:
Children Learn What They Live
By Dorothy Law Nolte, Ph.D.
If children live with criticism, they learn to condemn.
If children live with hostility, they learn to fight.
If children live with fear, they learn to be apprehensive.
If children live with pity, they learn to feel sorry for themselves.
If children live with ridicule, they learn to feel shy.
If children live with jealousy, they learn to feel envy.
If children live with shame, they learn to feel guilty.
If children live with encouragement, they learn confidence.
If children live with tolerance, they learn patience.
If children live with praise, they learn appreciation.
If children live with acceptance, they learn to love.
If children live with approval, they learn to like themselves.
If children live with recognition, they learn it is good to have a goal.
If children live with sharing, they learn generosity.
If children live with honesty, they learn truthfulness.
If children live with fairness, they learn justice.
If children live with kindness and consideration, they learn respect.
If children live with security, they learn to have faith in themselves and in those about them.
If children live with friendliness, they learn the world is a nice place in which to live.
Copyright © 1972 by Dorothy Law Nolte
Voting is one of the most important responsibilities we as citizens have: it is the whole point of a democracy, or even a republic such the US. Why then, does Science News ask "Are we using the worst voting procedure?" In getting a result that actually reflects the wishes of the populace, the "plurality" system we use, where you get one vote per race, period, is the worst system. To give an example of why this system is so bad, we only have to go back to the last Presidential election: the general consensus is that people who did or wanted to vote for Ralph Nader would have preferred that Al Gore get elected over George Bush. Yet if they voted the way they actually felt, they were effectively voting for the person they *least* wanted. This is not a fair system.
The one that seems to be best in terms of simplicity and fairness is Approval Voting. With this system, rather than one vote per race, you get one vote per candidate. It's still fair: what would be unfair would be multiple votes per candidate (well, there are some systems that manage that also, but they're complicated). This way you vote for all the candidates you find acceptable and the one with the most votes wins: people who wanted Nader could also vote for Gore as insurance against Bush. It works both ways: many people in Oregon feel that Al (what's his name? a cohort of Lon Mabon's) siphoned off enough conservative voters to throw the governorship to the Democrats a few elections ago.
When the election represents the opposite of what the people really want, is it any wonder that people are disillusioned?