February 03, 2005
A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand
I take no pains to hide nor apologize for my rich distain for George W. Bush and his crooked, dysfunctional Administration. It still troubles me greatly that an admitted mediocre performer in life can gain the highest political office in the country. And what rankles me more is that the man is so adept at obfuscating the truth that no one seems to bother calling it to our attention. And so the real state of the Union was buried last night, glossed over by a wink and a smug arrogant smile.
Try as I might my fellow Americans, I can not escape the realization that the state of our Union is precarious; we are a fractured nation, a house slowly dividing, a society leisurely decaying in the quicksand of our own unfettered greed and ignorance of the true meaning of freedom and equality. We are all familiar with that famous axiom uttered with such eloquence by our sixteenth President:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."
Can this quote be applied to today’s America? Is the discordant slavery issue of old taken on a new guise and morphed into the Gay Marriage and abortion (Liberals vs. Conservatives) issues of today? There can be little argument that the Gay Marriage and abortion rights issues are dividing the nation, and that our inability to address the twin concerns from a purely legal and fundamental rights standpoint has put liberty and equality in jeopardy for more then half the population. And the President’s call for a Constitutional Amendment to ban Gay Marriage; to write into our founding document the articles of discrimination and bigotry is unforgivable, but not unremarkable given the fanatical conservatism infesting our nation and the man who champions their cause.
Bush stated last night:
“Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them...Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.”
"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
Are discrimination, bigotry, and intolerance values we want to continue to pass along to our children? And how do they (discrimination, bigotry, and intolerance) sustain a free society? Is Bush saying we don’t want to recognize and celebrate the difference between human beings; is he saying that homosexuals are immoral and incapable of forming families and raising responsible, moral children? And while marriage may be a sacred religious institution, no institution regulated and governed by the many states or federal government can, or should be considered sacrosanct. And I will say it again and again, and again until we all get the message, the tradition of marriage as regulated by the many states (not federal government), is a civil institution governed by civil law. Religion, of course can play a part in the ceremonial aspect of the tradition if the parties so choose, but Canon Law holds no sway over the administration of marriage in America. Marriage licenses are not issued at the local church, you have to go to the county seat to obtain one in my state.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
And if I hear the term “activist judge” one more time coming from the President mouth—a man who should know better then to undermine a fellow branch of government so cavalierly—I think I shall pull what little remaining hair I have from my head! The term activist judge is wholly an invention of the religious right, it is a term used to divide the citizenry, to sow the seeds of disrespect into the fabric of the judicial process in this nation and undercut the rule of law. If the people do not trust the judicial branch to be faithful stewards of the law, how long can the rule of law hold sway in a free society that counts on it to maintain good order and personal responsibility?
"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
The judicial branch is a co-equal branch of our government, be it local, state, or federal. It deserves, nay should demand, the respect of the other two branches of government. Indeed, the Supreme Court should decry the term “activist judge” once and for all and admonish all who use it including our dimwitted President. This continual undermining of judges and their authority cannot stand, and in the end, is and will continue to subvert judicial authority to society’s determent.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
We cannot be the beacon of liberty and equality aboard if the light of freedom is being extinguished at home. We have lost the meaning of freedom and its sister, equality, within our Republic. We would endow it to our personage but deny it to others for reason of faith, faith; an intangible, something that cannot be proved. Faith is not the basis for public law. Half of the population knows this, while the other half wallows in the ignorance the umbrella of faith provides, convinced that beliefs should govern the masses, should inform public policy, and hold sway over every citizen despite his or her own belief system. Faith is personal and should remain such. Your morals are your own to grabble with, just as mine inform my life. Of course there should be societal norms that govern us all, but those should spring from the Constitution, not the Holy Bible, or the Koran, or any other spiritual tome.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
How long my fellow Americans, will it be before the light of liberty in our Republic goes out? And the Constitution is relegated to just another meaningless artifact, it Articles and Amendments referred to as “quaint” and no longer relevant in a society that places religious beliefs and structured pious control over person above personal freedom and equality?
Am I crying wolf? Is the state of our Union sound or are we like so many civilizations before use slowly eroding, devolving into ruin? Or are we special, immune from the wash of history, strong enough to withstand the ravages of human nature? Will our grand experiment in democracy hold despite the cracks that threaten to split the house asunder? If history is our guide—and we would be foolish to dismiss her as such—then we as a nation are not long for the dais of self-proclaimed greatness, unless we mend the cracks in the foundation of house and truly live the laudable principle enshrined in our national pledge…and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all!
"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
"A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
VEM -
Unity is all well and good, but it can only be based on consensus. You called for unity, and then proceeded to call my positions “discrimination, bigotry, and intolerance”. We have different value systems, and understand marriage to be something different. The real difference, however, may be in our willingness to work together. I am willing to try and make policy and build cohesion despite differences - and I avoid using words like “bigotry” when describing those I disagree with.
What is apparent from your post is that those who share your views are in fact the problem. As long as you view me as an intolerant bigot, the chances of us working together are slim.
Some problems cannot be solved to everyone’s satisfaction: you and I will probably never agree on a solution to the question of abortion. And sometimes those problems are big enough to rend a nation in two, as did slavery. But I don’t believe that abortion, let alone gay marriage, are big enough issues that they should break apart this country. Nor do I think one side should be forcibly silenced - that would be the most unamerican thing imaginable.
So, an intolerant, discriminating bigot is asking you to work together in the middle. How are you going to respond to that?
Posted by: Chops at February 3, 2005 01:06 PMChops:
“So, an intolerant, discriminating bigot is asking you to work together in the middle. How are you going to respond to that?”
I wonder, how is that possible, except for someone who is exactly like them?
The very nature of such a character will always negate the idea of working together.
No, I’d think intolerant discriminating bigots would first have to work on wading and sorting through their own fears and prejudices before they’d ever have a hope of learning the art of compromise.
Chops,
First of all I do not know you personally or otherwise so how could I think of you in those terms? If you yourself wish to wrap yourself in the cloth of an intolerant bigot, I shall not argue otherwise. As far as marriage is concerned, as it is administered by the many states it is what it is, a civil institution, period. The administration of the institution of marriage by the many states has nothing what so ever to do with differing values, it has to do with the fair and equitable application of the law!
Your (and other conservatives) spiritual values informed as they are by your religious convictions have no place in this debate. I am a man of the middle which is why I write in this column. I am all to willing to meet in the middle when the situation warrants it, but in this conservatives are wrong. I am not the one willing to deny other American their fundamental rights because their lifestyle is different from my own. This is not intolerance but acceptance. I find it increasingly disingenuous how conservative frequently paint themselves as the victims.
Freedom is the ability to do what I will within the confines of the law as long as I do not harm others, or society in general in my pursuits. Where is the harm in allowing Gay and lesbians to marry? And only the born are citizens under our Constitution construct. As abhorrent as I find abortion, I am enlightened enough to realize that sometimes, like war, which is equally as abhorrent, it is a necessary evil, one which every woman should have the right to exercise freely of her own will. Women are citizens of this nation protected and governed by the Constitution, fetus’s are not. That, my friend is the essence of freedom, and we are not free until we can exercise that freedom free from the moral constraints and dictates of others.
It is not I who seeks to forcibly silence dissenting voice, I only seek to enlighten.
I would just like to point out that there are plenty of people, like myself, who believe that both unborn children and homosexual individuals are human beings worthy of having their rights protected. We do not think that unborn children should be discarded just because they are inconvinent to the powerful, just like we do not think that homosexuals should be denied equaity in front of the law, because their lifestyle makes the majority feel uncomfertable.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 3, 2005 02:19 PMMisha,
Points well considered. We all know well your position on abortion vis-à-vis the fetus and it is a laudable one, but one I do not completely share. Any wasting of human life is ill-considered, be it through abortion, war, senseless violence, or state sanctioned murder in the name of justice.
We are supposed to be first and foremost a nation governed by the rule of law. I cannot ignore a woman’s right under the law to privacy and freedom. And I do not think a fetus has any constitutional right, unalienable rights yes, but constitutional no. Or at least the fetus if endowed with constitutional rights, has none that should supersede a woman’s right to choose for herself what to do with her body. You and I can debate this issue for next ten generations, if we lived that long, but that will not change the fact that we, as men cannot carry a child, it is never a burden nature will ask us to bear. So how can we tell a woman, any woman, that she has to allow another human being to grow inside her against their will? That is not freedom.
Thank you for that response, E.M., its a lot more respect than I have gotten from a lot of other pro-choice people on this board.
I think our constitution’s mission should be to, as best as possible, protect the inelianable rights of people within the jurisdictions of our nation. As a result, i think unborn children, via our laws, should be extended this sort of protection. As the Decleration recognized, governments are established to protect inelianable rights- so if you are correct that our constitution does not protect unborn children (which I do not agree with), then there is a serious defect in our constitution.
As for us being men and never being able to be pregnant- your point is well taken. But i will point out that support and opposition to abortion is the same in every poll regaurdless of gender (usually between 45 and 55 percent of people oppose legal abortion, depending on how the question is worded). This does not surprize me at all, because women, just as well as men, can use their reasoning faculties to see that a parent has a duty to their unborn child not to end that child’s life.
On the gay marriage issue- I could not agree with you more in your moral assessment of the position. Unlike you, however, I have a major emotional conflict in that a lot of people I respect highly on other issues are just so wrong on this issue. its just very frustrating. They can offer only vague justification relating to the protecting the “sanctity
of marriage, without any real reasoned basis. I do not even know how to argue against their feelings/religion, as i can only speak the language of reasoning and logic.
its very frustrating indeed- but just know you have some friends on this issue deap within the ranks of those who want to push this terrible ammmendment through.
I have full confidence that within 25 years gays will be able to marry, and unborn children will have many more legal protections. Our country’s history has been an ever-expanding protection of more people’s rights. i believe enough in the American people and our constitutional process that I do not think homosexuals and unborn children will remain excluded forever. Just like the terrible treatement of blacks, native americans, women, immigrants, ect- this too will get better- hopefully sooner rather than later.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 3, 2005 04:00 PM“Unity is all well and good, but it can only be based on consensus.”
“The real difference, however, may be in our willingness to work together.”
Well said Chops!
As you can see, working together, willingness or a consensus is not possible if you don’t share the same liberal view.
Total blind acceptance of liberal views is demanded and no understanding or concessions from liberals are possible.
I really hate falling into the left vs. right paradigm, but when someone asks how we can work together to solve a problem and is told its all you, not us, thats wrong.
Posted by: kctim at February 3, 2005 06:01 PMMisha,
You and I have gone round and round on the abortion issue so I will leave that one alone.
“They can offer only vague justification relating to the protecting the “sanctity
of marriage, without any real reasoned basis.”
Those that are for a gay marriage amendment and base their argument on the basis of the sanctity of marriage should look at the divorce rate statistics. They would be better off with an amendment against divorce. Gays don’t threaten the “sanctity” of marriage, immature spouses do.
Posted by: Rocky at February 3, 2005 06:03 PMTwo compromises:
One, an embryo is not considered a fetus until the end of its eighth week. So for the first eight weeks, no problem, abort away. After the end of the eighth week, its too late, no more abortions.
Two, no gay marriage. Instead have Gay Matrimony, of course with Gay Matrimony would come all the benefits and legal rights given to Straight Marriages.
Problem solved, right? No more dead fetuss and the sanctity of marriage is now safe.
My guess is no, these problems are all or nothing for the devote Christians among us. The Church will not compromise on these issues. There for, its at times blind and unquestioning followers will not compromise either, scriptures says they cant. Both issues for the Church have to do with procreation, making more babies. More babies equals more followers. As with its stand against birth control, anything that stops procreation is bad. Destroyed embryos dont make babies, Gays dont make babies. Lets hear the Church preach strongly against in-vitro fertilization, it kills hundreds of thousands of embryos a year. No, in-vitro fertilization makes babies. I have actually seen Church support groups, for couples unable to have children, where in-vitro fertilization information was passed out.
The Church knows as its birth rates fall and other faiths birth rates rise, they lose power in the world. Nations come and nations go but the religious faiths of the world have been fighting for power in the world for thousands of years. Fewer followers equals less power. What allows the religious faiths to steer its followers is their scriptures. Each has the ability to be manipulated into saying what is in their best interest.
The Church of the south in Lincolns day used the scripture to convince its followers slavery was right and justified. The Civil War was not just fought over the Constitution, for many it was fought over the religious belief that God made the white man to be superior. Lincoln knew that this war was also religious and the scriptures can be interpreted and twisted in many ways.
Those of us who are Christians and raised to follow without question, may need to rethink this blind devotion to the Church. In the history of the Church many mistakes have been made and then allowed by blind devotion. Blind devotion to God is good but God does not run the Church, man does.
“It will become all one thing or all the other”
Posted by: wisevil at February 3, 2005 06:35 PMChops, in human interaction and regulation of same, the words bigot, discrimination and intolerance have very concrete meanings.
Those who propose to regulate individual differences from their midst are intolerant. Those who give preferential treatment to those most like them and shun or diminish those least like them are both discriminating and bigoted.
There is of course justified bases for regulating individual differences which can empirically be demonstrated to harm or undermine other person’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the absence of such empirical demonstrations, regulations dictating what others should and should not do can quickly descend to the definition of bigotry and intolerance.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 3, 2005 08:15 PMIn his article, VEM said:
…discrimination and bigotry is unforgivable, but not unremarkable given the fanatical conservatism infesting our nation and the man who champions their cause.
In his comment, VEM said:
Your (and other conservatives) spiritual values informed as they are by your religious convictions have no place in this debate
He also said:
…but in this conservatives are wrong.
The only point that I am trying to make is that I only consider one of these quotes acceptable in a discussion about uniting a divided nation.
What VEM has said is that:
(a) All who have traditional views on marriage are bigots;
(b) Their opinions should be excluded from debate;
(c) The problems that “they” (conservatives) complain about (e.g. “activist judges”) are fabrications;
(d) We should all unite.
So I should shut up and/or change my opinions in the interests of unity? There’s a bargain if I ever saw one.
Lastly, please don’t comment about gay marriage in response to this - that’s not the topic of the article nor of my comment. We can have that discussion another time. But I want VEM and those who agree with him to please explain to me how they intend to address “a house divided”.
That’s a lot harder than just bashing me for an outmoded view on marriage, isn’t it?
Posted by: Chops at February 3, 2005 09:06 PMMisha wrote:
its very frustrating indeed- but just know you have some friends on this issue deep within the ranks of those who want to push this terrible amendment through.
For the past week or so, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann has been the subject of a concerted email campaign, triggered by some flippant remarks/reporting done on Focus On The Family’s James Dobson and his embarrassing ‘outing’ of SpongeBob SquarePants. You can read up on the latest at Keith’s Bloggermann website.
Dobson’s ‘Issues Co-ordinator’ has deemed the form email campaign a success, asserting 36,000 complaints fired off to the MSNBC anchor’s address - which is an exaggerated lie. Not counting the blank emails received and the messages of praise and support for Olbermann, the ‘Focus’ onslaught amounted to just 1,200 emails.
My point is Misha, I can understand your anguish if there are valued, intelligent friends in your life that would express genuine support for passage of a Gay Marriage Amendment - but I tend to doubt this is true. But my other point, is to caution that just because the abhorrent views of the James Dobsons’ get widespread coverage and publicity, we should not assume that an unseen, but substantial number of fervent believers are ready to validate every intolerant view he preaches.
As I have said here before, when given the choice between hope and fear, American voters will always choose fear. And, Dobson and his ilk can only deliver the full impact of such manipulation every two years, on Election Day.
Karl Rove knows this, and the Evangelicals are about to figure it out, right after they realize they have been ‘Punk’d’ for the last time.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 3, 2005 09:12 PMChops,
I do not know if there is answer other then education which will hopefully lead to a broader understanding of our constitutional Republic. We will never come together and form a consensus as long as half the electorate holds incomplete and ill-informed view of the way our government is supposed to work and the role freedom plays in our society.
The problems, in my view run, deeper then a mere difference of opinion or lifestyle, or even spiritual values, they run to the very heart of our democracy and how it should be governed. And the depth of the freedoms we Americans should enjoy. Religious fervor and zealotry is creeping into the very seams of our civil live where is doesn’t belong, and forcing its way into public policy, despite the best efforts of some to keep it at arms length. This is the schism that threatens our house. Religion, and spirituality in my humble view, has its place, its just not in the public arena where its traditions run contrary to history of human freedom.
I agree with David, divested of its religious overcoat there is no lawful reason to keep gays from becoming married persons. One can only hope that the Religious Right will lose its momentum in short order and America can mend her house and march forward once again and continue the grand experiment.
Misha,
No doubt there are plenty of women who do not support abortion and I respect their position as I respect yours. But the choice should be theirs to make for good or ill, we as a society of free peoples should not interfere in the choices other makes as long as no harm is done to other citizens or society at large.
On Gay marriage, we seem to be one mind on this issue. It is indeed frustrating to see our country go down this road while preaching the virtues of freedom to other nations. I finally convinced my wife to throw off the shackles of emotion that were blinding her to the real issue in this matter and now she sees that absence tangible harm to the Institution of marriage, here is no lawful reason to prevent homosexuals from engaging in the practice.
Let us hope you are right and in twenty-five years Gay marriage will be common-place, and that the issue of abortion is settle in such a way as to allow both side to save face.
Non-Partisan Centrists excise out the extreme views and are influential in outcomes: No to Gay Marriage. Contracts and civil agreements are sufficient.
Just how many more elections is your segment going to create osses for moderate candidates and swing elections to types like that idiot delusional king and his empire building crowd that surrounds him?
We do not think that unborn children should be discarded just because they are inconvinent to the powerful, just like we do not think that homosexuals should be denied equaity in front of the law, because their lifestyle makes the majority feel uncomfertable.
Who does? I mean, is anybody really arguing that “unborn children should be discarded just because they are inconvinent”? Is anyone really arguing that “homosexuals should be denied equaity in front of the law”?
VEM says,
There can be little argument that the Gay Marriage and abortion rights issues are dividing the nation
I’d argue that the issues themselves are absolutely NOT dividing the nation. A large majority of Americans are against abortion, but are also against outlawing it completely. A large majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, but support equal legal rights for gay couples.
Most Americans are not divided on these issues. The appearance of divisiveness is manufactured and inflamed by certain politicians and community leaders who are using for their own purposes the strong feelings that emerge when confronted with extreme viewpoints on these issues.
These are classic wedge issues, and Americans are being played. Anyone who is serious about reconciling the majority of Americans over these issues would not find it hard.
I wont even give my opinon of the right/wrong of same sex marriage.
I just wonder if it might have been wiser politically to have pushed more states for civil unions untill society became more tolerant of those, and then went after marriage ?
I know someone is going to scream its like “seperate but equal”, I’ve hear that before.
A Mass. judge could find no law banning it and it became legal there.
Other states looked at that and starting passing laws against same sex marriage, some banned civil unions also.
There were some same sex couples that were striped of Ins. benifits that had them before.
I just wonder if the “all or nothing” was a good choice at this time?
Some have nothing now when they had something before.
Did anyone read what I wrote? This divide will not go away because the religious right has decided to compromise. If you listen to the rhetoric coming from the Church today they feel stronger than ever. It is not in them to compromise on these issues, it will not happen!
The important thing to keep in mind is they are not the majority of America. Though they are virtually all Republicans, and more important they all vote. The only way to win this battle is to get the rest of America to VOTE!
Give up on compromise; work on getting the rest of America in the game. You find the right candidate with the right message and this all goes away. Wake up people.
You mean “the religious right has decided not to compromise,” right?
And calm down big fella. I’ve been hanging around here for a while now, and have almost never seen anyone change anyone else’s opinion.
Except for kctim, who now sees the need for a national pension system - as long as it’s voluntary. But I don’t think he shifted because someone was grabbing his collar and yelling, “Wake up!” :)
AP my friend,
Just because we seldom see someone put into print that their mind was changed by the debate, doesn’t mean that it didn’t spark an interest to reasearch the other point of view and gain a more knowledgeable outlook on the issue.
Isn’t that why we debate rather than argue ?
Posted by: Beagle at February 5, 2005 01:30 PMAP,
Yeah, I know I get a little carried away. Try being my wife!
The point I was trying to make is compromise equals weakness at this point. When backed into a corner, an animal doesnt look for compromise (“Ill let you eat my legs if you let me go”) it fights for its life. When Republicans have no reason or need to compromise and Democrats keep looking for things to compromise on, the Democrats are going to get steam rolled.
Compromise happens only when both sides are of equal power. Compromise is not necessary when you have the majority of power and its just a nicer word for surrender when you are without power. Now is the time for Democrats to fight for their lives. Like the animal in the corner, fight for your life until something comes along to change the balance of power, like a distraction, a bigger predator or darkness. For the Democrats, they need the right candidate with the right message to swing into this corner and help them fight their way out of it. This candidate can not focus on the Democratic base; they must focus on the majority of Americans who did not vote. With out those Americans its over. The right candidate, right message, means the candidate who manages to get the disillusioned masses off their butts and to the ballot box.
Im not trying to change the minds of Conservatives, like you said changing minds is a waste of my time. What I am trying to say to Democrats though is, wake up its not working. They seem weak, without a message, without a leader. Find a message for the masses, find a leader for the masses and until then fight like your life depends on it. Compromise at this point will only lead to the death of the Democratic Party.
Isn’t that why we debate rather than argue ?
Beagle I see the error of my ways. Of course, you are right. :)
Try being my wife!
wisevil I barely know you, but thanks anyway. :)
fight like your life depends on it. Compromise at this point will only lead to the death of the Democratic Party.
I hope you’re calling and sending emails to that effect. Even if you have to call someone else’s Democratic representatives.
My parents live in Georgia. To paraphrase that Last of the Mohiccans movie I tell them, “Stay alive! Democrats will find you!” ;)
Posted by: American Pundit at February 6, 2005 04:48 AM
