Monday, April 30, 2007
Pay No Attention to that Yucky Old Piece of Paper...
It never stops being hilarious.
- A Push to Legalize Gay Marriage
Published: April 30, 2007
To the Editor:
You're worried that religious groups might "dictate who can and who cannot be married by the state" (editorial, April 24)?
Consider this: my Christian faith profoundly informs the way I vote. If I believe that a legislative proposal threatens the common good, I will vote against it and encourage others to do the same.
That's not dictatorial. That's democracy.
(Rev.) James D. Miller?Tulsa, Okla., April 25, 2007
The writer is pastor of the First Presbyterian Church.
- To the Editor:
You're worried that religious groups might "dictate who can and who cannot be married by the state" (editorial, April 24)?
Consider this: my [fill in the blank] faith profoundly informs the way I vote. If I believe that a legislative proposal (such as allowing blacks to marry whites) threatens the common good, I will vote against it and encourage others to do the same.
That's not dictatorial. That's democracy.
(Rev.) James D. Miller?Tulsa, Okla., April 25, 2007
The writer is pastor of the [fill in the blank] Church.
To the Editor:
You're worried that religious groups might "dictate who can and who cannot be married by the state" (editorial, April 24)?
Consider this: my [fill in the blank] faith profoundly informs the way I vote. If I believe that a legislative proposal (such as allowing women to vote) threatens the common good, I will vote against it and encourage others to do the same.
That's not dictatorial. That's democracy.
(Rev.) James D. Miller?Tulsa, Okla., April 25, 2007
The writer is pastor of the [fill in the blank] Church.
To the Editor:
You're worried that religious groups might "dictate who can and who cannot be married by the state" (editorial, April 24)?
Consider this: my [fill in the blank] faith profoundly informs the way I vote. If I believe that a legislative proposal (such as allowing Catholics to be citizens) threatens the common good, I will vote against it and encourage others to do the same.
That's not dictatorial. That's democracy.
(Rev.) James D. Miller?Tulsa, Okla., April 25, 2007
The writer is pastor of the [fill in the blank] Church.
To the Editor:
You're worried that religious groups might "dictate who can and who cannot be married by the state" (editorial, April 24)?
Consider this: my [fill in the blank] faith profoundly informs the way I vote. If I believe that a legislative proposal (such as allowing the slaves to go free) threatens the common good, I will vote against it and encourage others to do the same.
That's not dictatorial. That's democracy.
(Rev.) James D. Miller?Tulsa, Okla., April 25, 2007
The writer is pastor of the [fill in the blank] Church.
To the Editor:
You're worried that religious groups might "dictate who can and who cannot be married by the state" (editorial, April 24)?
Consider this: my [fill in the blank] faith profoundly informs the way I vote. If I believe that a legislative proposal (such as forbidding the strangling of female babies in the cradle) threatens the common good, I will vote against it and encourage others to do the same.
That's not dictatorial. That's democracy.
(Rev.) James D. Miller?Tulsa, Okla., April 25, 2007
The writer is pastor of the [fill in the blank] Church.
To the Editor:
You're worried that religious groups might "dictate who can and who cannot be married by the state" (editorial, April 24)?
Consider this: my [fill in the blank] faith profoundly informs the way I vote. If I believe that a legislative proposal (such as forbidding the stoning of adulterers) threatens the common good, I will vote against it and encourage others to do the same.
That's not dictatorial. That's democracy.
(Rev.) James D. Miller?Tulsa, Okla., April 25, 2007
The writer is pastor of the [fill in the blank] Church.
To the Editor:
You're worried that religious groups might "dictate who can and who cannot be married by the state" (editorial, April 24)?
Consider this: my [fill in the blank] faith profoundly informs the way I vote. If I believe that a legislative proposal (such as allowing unwed mothers to keep their children) threatens the common good, I will vote against it and encourage others to do the same.
That's not dictatorial. That's democracy.
(Rev.) James D. Miller?Tulsa, Okla., April 25, 2007
The writer is pastor of the [fill in the blank] Church.
To the Editor:
You're worried that religious groups might "dictate who can and who cannot be married by the state" (editorial, April 24)?
Consider this: my [fill in the blank] faith profoundly informs the way I vote. If I believe that a legislative proposal (such as teaching woman to read) threatens the common good, I will vote against it and encourage others to do the same.
That's not dictatorial. That's democracy.
(Rev.) James D. Miller?Tulsa, Okla., April 25, 2007
The writer is pastor of the [fill in the blank] Church.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Regarding Miller's letter to the editor and your litany of possibilities: you've apparently based your comment on a wildly broad definition of "inalienable rights" --which makes your derision a cheap-shot.
Why shouldn't fathers have the inalienable right to marry their daughters? Why not permit man-boy marriages? Where do the "inalienable rights" end? That's the issue.
Why shouldn't fathers have the inalienable right to marry their daughters? Why not permit man-boy marriages? Where do the "inalienable rights" end? That's the issue.
# posted by
:
10:04 AM, May 07, 2007
:
10:04 AM, May 07, 2007
Pretending that society has no way of determining between proper and improper behavior -- between behavior that is proscribed for definable reasons and behavior that's proscribed because some people don't like it -- is only a means for substituting mob rule for legal judgment. We haven't descended that far in this country for a while, Rick Santorum notwithstanding.
Thankfully, neither proper legal judgment nor "inalienable rights" are up for popular vote. That's what the words "inalienable rights" mean, and why they were written down on the document that forms the basis of our liberty.
It's why we HAVE a document in the first place: so that justice, and not the whimsy of men, rules. ""Inalienable rights" aren't subject to a popularity contest.
This is pretty basic stuff.
Of course, we take freedom pretty seriously here at 201k, so we reserve the right to take shots, cheap or otherwise, at whoever would presume to cast it aside in pursuit of a myopic personal agenda.
Why? Because anyone willing to limit someone else's freedom must surely realize the same mechanism could be turned against them; they must either foolishly believe themselves above risk, or be so driven by personal animosity that they're willing to gamble everyone's freedom to actualize it. That's a pretty despicable mindset -- don't you agree?
Post a Comment
Thankfully, neither proper legal judgment nor "inalienable rights" are up for popular vote. That's what the words "inalienable rights" mean, and why they were written down on the document that forms the basis of our liberty.
It's why we HAVE a document in the first place: so that justice, and not the whimsy of men, rules. ""Inalienable rights" aren't subject to a popularity contest.
This is pretty basic stuff.
Of course, we take freedom pretty seriously here at 201k, so we reserve the right to take shots, cheap or otherwise, at whoever would presume to cast it aside in pursuit of a myopic personal agenda.
Why? Because anyone willing to limit someone else's freedom must surely realize the same mechanism could be turned against them; they must either foolishly believe themselves above risk, or be so driven by personal animosity that they're willing to gamble everyone's freedom to actualize it. That's a pretty despicable mindset -- don't you agree?
Links to this post:
<< Home
