![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Domino Theory
Mississippi is racing South Dakota in outlawing access to abortion services.
Welcome to the Domino Theory, Edition 2006.
Wonder if the Mississippi legislators will, like the South Dakota legislators, refuse to open the question up for a vote by the people in November elections. I'm thinking the answer is: "Yes."
Fuck dat noise.
Whenever you're proposing to strip people of their rights, I'm thinking you better damn well ask them if it's okay that you do just that.
You just know, just know that the reason why these "pro-life states" (in quotes because I'd actually believe these states were "pro-life" if they weren't so damned tight-fisted about spending money on actually taking care of, feeding, and educating the living, breathing, walking-around children they've already got living in poverty...) won't do it is because they know they will lose and lose very, very badly if they put the question up for a general vote.
It says something when my mother, the staunchly anti-abortion woman that she is, actually volunteered on the phone with absolutely zero prompting from me: "This banning abortion business. Looking at it now, I'm starting to think that this is not such a great idea."
Something about suddenly remembering how there were dead women back in the day before Roe and that maybe "safe" is just a little bit better than "not safe." My parents are thinking that the days of underground networks where you may or may not have been able to get a safe, sterile surgical procedure is not exactly a day they want anyone to revisit. Cause, at the end of the day, healthy, safe, and living women are a hell of a lot better than sick, trapped, or dead women.
Something I've only been saying since, oh, forever.
See? This is why I used to start fights in my religion class back at my Unnamed Catholic High School. Good thing I was a straight-A student, otherwise they would've expelled my ass.
Hmmmm, if someone like my mother is taking a step back and thinking the better of banning abortion now that it just might become reality in some states, it might not be as hopeless as we think.
Of course, that's assuming these wonderful state Legislatures have the balls to let their constituents actually vote on the issue.
Yeah. Good luck with that.
Welcome to the Domino Theory, Edition 2006.
Wonder if the Mississippi legislators will, like the South Dakota legislators, refuse to open the question up for a vote by the people in November elections. I'm thinking the answer is: "Yes."
Fuck dat noise.
Whenever you're proposing to strip people of their rights, I'm thinking you better damn well ask them if it's okay that you do just that.
You just know, just know that the reason why these "pro-life states" (in quotes because I'd actually believe these states were "pro-life" if they weren't so damned tight-fisted about spending money on actually taking care of, feeding, and educating the living, breathing, walking-around children they've already got living in poverty...) won't do it is because they know they will lose and lose very, very badly if they put the question up for a general vote.
It says something when my mother, the staunchly anti-abortion woman that she is, actually volunteered on the phone with absolutely zero prompting from me: "This banning abortion business. Looking at it now, I'm starting to think that this is not such a great idea."
Something about suddenly remembering how there were dead women back in the day before Roe and that maybe "safe" is just a little bit better than "not safe." My parents are thinking that the days of underground networks where you may or may not have been able to get a safe, sterile surgical procedure is not exactly a day they want anyone to revisit. Cause, at the end of the day, healthy, safe, and living women are a hell of a lot better than sick, trapped, or dead women.
Something I've only been saying since, oh, forever.
See? This is why I used to start fights in my religion class back at my Unnamed Catholic High School. Good thing I was a straight-A student, otherwise they would've expelled my ass.
Hmmmm, if someone like my mother is taking a step back and thinking the better of banning abortion now that it just might become reality in some states, it might not be as hopeless as we think.
Of course, that's assuming these wonderful state Legislatures have the balls to let their constituents actually vote on the issue.
Yeah. Good luck with that.
Domino Theory
(Anonymous) 2006-03-01 11:42 pm (UTC)(link)I have a question. What did you think about the Mass Supreme Court's decision about Gay Marriage. Should the people of Mass been able to vote on the issue or 5 unelected judges able to decide what they want.
The voters in SD and Miss will get the chance to vote on the issue. If the voters don't like the decision, a bunch of state legislators will be looking for work. It's the way representative democracy is supposed to work.
Re: Domino Theory
In addition, most of the legislators who opposed Equal Marriage in the state and who stood for re-election 2004 found themselves out of a job.
And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the State Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of it and our constitution clearly states that you can discriminate against any group of citizens. It further ruled that if the state wanted to ban Equal Marriage, the constitution would have to be ammended.
The legislature failed to do that. It is now up for an open vote.
There's also a huge difference between ensuring people have their rights, as opposed to taking them away. The State Supreme Court ensured that a group of people had their rights under the law. That's a completely different question and the banning abortion issue (taking a right away) and the Equal Marriage issue (ensuring everyone has equal rights) are two completely different issues and two completely different questions.
Besides, how does allow GLBT people get married to someone of the same sex take away anyone else's rights or affect anyone else's rights? It doesn't.
Allowing Equal Mariage does not force any relgion to recognize that union or provide services to that couple, therefore no one's religious rights are being abridged.
Allowing Equal Marriage doesn't take food out of anyone's mouth. If anything, if a same-sex union dissolves, it now forces one of the responsible adults to pay child support, which means a lower rate of single-parent homes living in poverty. It also means that domestic violence laws can be more rigorously enforced and properly prosecuted in cases where there is domestic violence in a same-sex relationship. Ergo, it's not picking anyone's pocket, either.
Allowing Equal Marriage is a bonus for the business community because now they don't have to offer domestic partnership benefits. Now they can insist on a marriage certificate since anyone in this state can get a marriage certificate and legally prove they are family for the family bennies. Businesses have indicated that this saves them money. Ergo, there are many private and public institutions financially benefitting from Equal Marriage in this state.
In short, no one is getting punched in the nose, no one is being forced to pay for it. So the apple and oranges comparison is moot, as far as I'm concerned. It's not the same question. At all.
Re: Domino Theory
(Anonymous) 2006-03-02 12:48 am (UTC)(link)You were complaining about the SD Legislature refusing to open the question up for a vote by the people in November elections.
I pointed out that the Mass Supreme Court did the same thing. The difference is that you approve of one result and not the other.
I think that the 5 judges of the Mass Supreme Court should have been impeached, tarred, and feathered. However, if the Mass Legislature had passed a law doing the same thing, I wouldn't care. I don't live in Mass and don't really care about the issue. I do care about democratic process.
Abortion is a political issue now because of the Supreme Court. In the years leading up to Roe, the political consensus on the issue was changing. Abortion was legal in many states and being discussed in other places. Abortion was legalized in CA by that extreme liberal, Ronald Reagan. Then the Supreme Court decided the issue by fiat. This had roughly the same effect as clamping down the relief valve on a steam engine. It has been poisoning American politics for a generation.
Re: Domino Theory
One is upholding rights that were already spelled out in the Massachusetts Constitution. That is not "judicial activism" or deciding an issue by "fiat." That is called upholding the law as it is written in said state constitution.
Please get your facts correct on this.
The other is taking away rights without placing it in front of the people who will lose that right.
There is a significant difference.
Now, by the same token, I'm all for legalizing marijuanna. I'd jump up and down with joy about all the sin taxes we could slap on that puppy and swell the state coffers. However, there is no law anywhere that says we have a legal right to it. In fact, there are state and federal laws against it.
I would be all for putting it up for a vote in a general election because there you are overturning an existing law.
In the case of Equal Marriage, no laws were overturned. None. At all. Period.