A conservative responds

My friend John is a dyed-in-the-wool, shot (twice!) in service of his country, gun-toting, Right-voting Republican, and a hell of a guy.

Today he got an email with the title “Zell Miller—-on target!” wherein there was a reproduction of Zell Miller’s statements endorsing George Bush’s support for the Defense from Homos Amendment, or whatever they’re calling it. In it, Zigzag Zell endorsed taking a stand against the degradation of American society by allowing those West Coast Sodomites and East Coast Activist Judges that are trying to destroy the Institution of MarriageĀ.

Well. John is a gentleman, a scholar, a fine historian, and when his country said “Go!” he went, and when it said “Jump!” he strapped on a parachute. He’s no liberal, and he’d be proud to tell you that, but this particular letter dropped into his inbox this morning, and it pissed him off.

He responds….

To assume that people behave differently now that than they have in the past is a classic error in logic.
Every generation has complained that the following generation is bent on bringing the moral destruction of humanity. Don’t you remember your parents saying to the effect: “We never acted like that when we were you age!”? Their parents told them the same thing. There is NO quantifiable reason to assume that immoral or even criminal behavior is ANY more prevalent now than it was 10, 50 or 1,000 years in the past. In fact, most statistical studies indicate that criminal behavior is declining in several areas in America and has been since the late 90’s. You’re actually less likely to be killed, robbed, or attacked now than you were during most of the Clinton years.

Immorality on the other hand is in the eye of the beholder and usually based on a religious view point that is set by a religious leader or eaders whom few if any in the “flock” question. How moral are they?

Islamic Mullahs preach that it correct and moral to sexually mutilate all young girls in order to prevent them from becoming sexually obsessed ( is it the girls who are sexually obsessed here?). This is reportedly practiced even in “moral” America within the Islamic community. It is overlooked or ignored because it is a religious practice. It is common for a Mullah in many countries to order a women to be gang raped if she openly disagrees with anything she is instructed to do or conditions of her existence ( I say existence because I can’t see how anyone could describe them as “living”- They are owned and considered less valuable than firearms. I watched a man trade his 15yr old(?) daughter for an AK-47 and case of ammo at a public market). This is as prevalent in countries America is friendly with as those we’d like to overthrow.

We as Americans are aware of these practices but say and do NOTHING to stop it. How moral are we?

Are Christians better? I can’t see how we could think so. Children are molested in churches and then the church does it’s best effort to cover the act up. It’s not just Catholics, my two nieces were molested in a Baptist church when they were 6 and 8 years old. When they came forward about it the preacher told my sister not to return. After all, the man being so active in youth groups and such a large
contributor to the church wouldn’t possibly do such a thing. He did however offer to drive the demons of lies out of the girls before they left. How understanding of him.

This is NOT a new behavior. It has always been there.

If we look at the Christian church through it’s history it becomes quite evident that “immoral” acts have been the standard for behavior. Torture and murder have been the method most preferred by the church to “correct” unbelievers, heretics and troublemakers throughout its long and depressing past. And when they couldn’t find enough heathens to murder in the name of God they murder each other over a theological difference with both sides sure that God was in agreement with their actions.

Compared to the Christian church Hitler was a boy scout.

Any group of people who judge themselves as the only ones who understand the will of the “One True God” will soon find themselves waist deep in blood. If not their own, then everyone else’s. It is the nature of religion to do so.

The Constitution does guarantee “Equal protection under the law.” It does not say equal protection for just Christians in good standing, equal protection for everyone except for homosexuals (it will if this amendment is passed however), or anyone else outside of the majority. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the minority. That in itself is it’s most important function. So that no one body of opinion becomes the ruling factor in American life.

This is the one safeguard that prevents us from becoming 1930’s Germany.

The mainstream of America is apposed to the KKK, the American Nazis, White Supremist movement. But the constitution protects them until they harm others. If we allow the Constitution to view one group as less than another then an important part of America is lost. Personally, I’d much rather have a gay married couple living next door than any of the white supremists I’ve known.

A gay marriage doesn’t endanger heterosexual marriage (mine or anyone else’s) in any way unless you’re concerned that other heterosexuals will be converted by the example or unless your fear of conversion is more personal.
There is no evidence that that is the case. Much to the contrary- medical science indicates that there is a substantial sexual preference link to fundamental differences (present at birth) in the the Hypothalamus and the Pituitary gland. To be prejudiced against someone over their sexual preference makes as much sense as treating someone as a second class citizen because they’re left handed. (Don’t laugh, try to find a left handed Muslim or even a left handed German over 50.)

If your stand is that same-sex marriage fundamentally endangers the institution of marriage then perhaps you should turn your attention to making divorce illegal. In America about 50% of marriages end in divorce. That would seem to be a more immediate threat.

Perhaps the answer it to take marriage as a whole out of the arena of civil law. Since it is based on religious dogma and is to the most part a religious ceremony then let it be a state that is recognized by the religious community without civil intrusion. Think of the money that would be saved if divorce were no longer an issue.

I’m of the opinion that this issue is just one more example of political BS for attracting votes during an election year. With all the important issues that need to be discussed it is insulting that this one is getting so much attention.

By the Way, I’m am a heterosexual retired US Army Ranger.
I normally vote Republican and voted for Bush.
I’m not surprized at Zell’s statement or Bush’s. I am disappointed that two men whom I normally respect are willing to take the American Constitution so lightly.

-John **********

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *