Elitism

[migrendel]

Some members of our forum have labeled me, and our not so dearly departed friend CTGuy, elitists. I would like to have this term clarified. What qualifies one as an elitist? Politics, education, background, residence, lifestyle? I've never known this to be a positive descriptor and I just want to know what I'm considered as a result of this term.

[migrendel]

I have always admired your candor, Angus. You are a valued addition to any debate.

[migrendel]

I think Ted Kennedy's outspokeness is hardly the scandal. The fact that the buses had rocks thrown at them and African-Americans were beat up merely because they complied with court order is appalling. I find no defense or sympathy for those who resorted to mob violence because they felt threatened.

I also cannot understand this indictment of the Northeast. Many of us are fortunate, yes, but we have our Puritan roots intact. We still see injustice towards those other than us. We make an effort to reach out to those among us who are different, even though we may not see much of them. It is through understanding that we demonstrate our concern, sometimes a concern for concepts or situations alien to us.

Despite your epithets, we are proud of who we are.

[migrendel]

While I don't have a blue collar job, have been educated beyond high school, don't really practice a faith, smoke, have a Southern accent, or say y'all, I don't begrudge anyone who does. I do drink socially, and I wonder as to quite what you mean by just be a guy and enjoy life.

[migrendel]

I do not believe that segregation is constitutional, either de facto or de jure. I favor busing to achieve an end to this. I also think that if the parents of South Boston don't like the idea of embracing basic civil rights for all, they can take their children out of public schools.

That's a form of elitism in its own right. As a result of themselves being condescended to by those who are more successful and educated, they need their own form of snobbery, be it despising blacks, gays, those who don't speak English, mainline Protestants, or what have you. Racism, I have found, is a form of snobbery practiced by those among us who don't have much to claim for themselves.

[migrendel]

I'll admit that I don't live the conventional masculine existence, but as the French say, Chacun a Son Gout.

[migrendel]

I'm not so sure about it, but I would try it. We must be open to new experiences.

[migrendel]

I do not feel that is elitism, Beef. If a court recognizes that a law contravenes the highest laws of our land, and strikes it down, it does not demean the will of the people, it does its constitutional duty. I also believe that hallowing the rights of those disliked, even despised, by the many and securing them beyond the reach of majorities is not elitism. It is the defense of the voiceless and powerless, which shows a humility that is not always appreciated.

[migrendel]

'Tis pity that so few conservatives realize that in our country, Gus.

[migrendel]

Did you ever stop and think of it from the perspective of those whose very existence is stifled by your "sexual mores"? I am proud that my court recognized that equality is a sacred right, not one that applies when it is convenient and when the majority approves. When you have that, who's to say that your rights aren't the next ones that offend the will of the majority?

[migrendel]

On what grounds is marriage cherished in this limited manifestation? Religion? Perfectly illegitimate in a country with a tradition of secular government. Tradition? Slaveholding was a tradition in this country. All of those reasons to preserve marriage are arbitrary, vague, and baseless with regard to logic.

To continue, you do not quite understand why this violates equal protection. I have always conceived this not as a case of discrimination based on sexual orientation, for the exact reason you cited, but gender discrimination. If one of the putative members of the couple was biologically different, they would not be denied a marriage license. Because they are of the same gender as their prospective husband or wife, they cannot be married. Gender discrimination is very much part of our law, and would seem to apply to this case.

And your democratic process argument is fatuous. Should Brown v. Board of Education should have been decided by local school districts, where people very much supported segregation, or was it correct as it happened? Should Roe v. Wade have been resolved by state legislatures? Should Miranda v. Arizona be applied based upon the community's concept of the right to know your rights? And if not, why are they different from the Goodridge case? The point is, judicial decisions are application of legal rules and rights derived from the Constitutions of our nation and common law, not opinion polls.

[migrendel]

I suppose I understand your predilection to think of marriage in one way, because people are creatures of habit. If whatever motivates you to think so prevents you, your religion, etc. from recognizing this type of marriage, all the power to you. But to insist that this be the currency of all communities and individuals, regardless of state, persuasion, or experience, is a peculiarly obnoxious strain of nosey parkerism. I could insist upon your idea of "Christian faithfulness in intimacy", which I see as a form of degrading sexual slavery closely cousined to rape, to be illegal, but out of respect for your views of love and intimacy, I choose not to contest that autonomy.

And to introduce Natural Law into the debate is terribly weak. These people tout how the natural order of things justifies the most injustices against women or what have you, but they shirk when one could say that a fidelity to how God created you obligates you to not get your hair cut, crawl around on all fours, and be naked. They pick and choose with their philosophical doctrines.

I also could not help to notice a poor case of Constitutional scholarship. I never claimed to believe in original intent, because I always believed that social change alters the meaning of the text. However, if you do profess allegiance to that doctrine, at least get your facts straight. Segregation was, at least in the cases of schools, tolerated. Segregated schools existed all throughout reconstruction, and were upheld by the Supreme Court, with even Justice Harlan supporting the decision. There were examples of segregation being declared unconstitutional, such as Hall v. DeCuir, but that was based on the Commerce Clause, not equal protection. When I look at the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Cruishank decision, and Plessy v. Ferguson, the meaning of the fourteenth amendment at inception becomes readily apparent.

I also see no reason to restrict marriage between consenting adults. I have enough respect for liberty to allow people their own decisions, and even turn their life into a train wreck if lacking in perspicaciousness.

[migrendel]

I did, thank you. If the last post confused you, it was a response to a particularly incompassionate post by Beef.

[migrendel]

Judicial tyranny? You've been reading too much Phyllis Schlafly. Our state's constitution, and the federal one, do not specify what instances constitute discrimination. I daresay that gender discrimination, and by extension, discrimination based upon sexual orientation, are arbitrary reasons to deny someone the benefits of citizenship.

I also think you place little value on liberty, which is quite surprising from a self-proclaimed libertarian. If you truly did believe in liberty, you would not hesitate to answer this question. Who decides: the individual or the government? But you have taken a litany of positions that would replace the right to decide one's fate, the most intimate and personal choices of one's life, and replaced it with the miasma of authority, constantly hanging over an individual's life. That to me is as illiberal as it gets.

I also see the historical trend of the meaning of marriage as irrelevant. Many old ideas give way to changes in social perception, and marriage is on an ineluctable progression towards being a gender-neutral institution. You have the choice to stand on the side of the future, and accept that this age of self-awareness has given people the confidence to ask, even demand that they be treated as equals in our society, or you can stand on the side of the past, and exult the anachronism of traditional marriage in the era of civil rights, even as it crumbles before you.

I can only close by saying this. The law only functions if the loweliest among us, the powerless, can have their voices heard and have justice done on their behalf. Your standard would convert the courts into a barometer of the waxing and waning of social perceptions of liberty and equality. I know that sometimes the courts take stances that are ahead of their time, and are met with opposition from some among us who don't take kindly to extending rights, but ultimately prevail. I know that elitism really does reign supreme, because many have the temerity to deem their relationships morally superior, and limit those who are different, despite their love and sincerity, to a longing for a deeper union. But most importantly, I know that this has happened many times before. I know from that that we shall overcome this.

[migrendel]

In addition, Brown didn't overturn Plessy. That was Bolling v. Sharpe.