Sunday, June 30, 2013


It has been an interesting week if you consider all that has happened in this country, the controversies, the agendas, the drama, and the spin.  Each day I become just a little more disconnected from the government.  I find my positions becoming ever further from the morality of the young. 
When I was young, television was my escape; my way to shut out the problems in my life.  Today, with the exception of some sports and old movies, there is little on television that draws me to it.  It truly has become noise to blot out the croaking of the frogs in the backyard.
So there’s a priest and a spy on a plane.  What should be the opening lines of a joke is actually the headline in a news article about a Vatican priest who was arrested for trying to smuggle $26M in cash into Italy aboard an Italian military jet. 
Yes I’m Catholic; I just don’t believe what the Church teaches.  While I may disagree with some on the right to abortion, I at least respect those who hold a consistent position.  But when a politician plays both ends against the middle I see little to respect.  Over the past ten years I’ve probably attended Mass more regularly than 90% of the Catholics I know.  While I don’t agree with some fundamental dogma of the church, and have therefore remained separate, I don’t think you can argue that the Catholic Church has been consistent on its position that life begins at conception and man does not have the right to end it -- that is to be left to God.  Unfortunately this does not fit within the social construct of most liberal Catholics.  I have a hard time understanding how you can claim affiliation with an institution you so fundamentally disagree with.  Wouldn’t it be better to just leave the church and start your own?  Say the Pro-Choice Church of Roman Universal or something else where you can interpret God however you like to fit what you want?
DOMA Arigato Mr. Roboto.  I wrote a blog post once; at least I think I wrote a post, as the Supreme Court was hearing the case of the United States v Windsor dealing with the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.  Like most of the country I had a non-lawyer opinion on what I thought should be the outcome.  I felt DOMA violated one of the basic rights of the States and should be overturned.  I wasn’t concerned about federal funds, or income tax, or even gay rights.  My singular position was DOMA overrode the prerogative of the state to fulfill its obligations to its citizens to enact laws that the majority of the state electorate agreed with.  Well this week the Supreme Court returned its decision.  I’ve read both the majority opinion by Judge Kennedy and the dissent by Judge Scalia.  While I agree with the finding, that DOMA is unconstitutional, I certainly appreciate Justice Scalia’s position that the injury that led to this case was, in fact, resolved by the lower court, and could have been just as easily addressed by not accepting the case and letting the lower court judgment stand.  It was obvious in the opinion the desire of the majority was to send a political message for future civil action opening an ever-widening definition of marriage, as Roe v Wade did for abortion.  This is why I am not a lawyer.
“In confusion there is profit” (from the movie Operation Petticoat) I really believe this must be how the Government runs, since we are spending so much more then we take in -- giving millions of dollars, we don’t have, to people will not benefit from them seems almost sensible.
I close with this quote from Joseph Heller.
“Destiny is a good thing to accept when it’s going your way.  When it isn’t, don’t call it destiny; call it injustice, treachery or simple bad luck.”


Colin said...

I know it is a difference in perspective, but i think Roe V Wade is the wrong connection to make here. I think a more fitting comparison, at least in the intent of the SCOTUS majority, would be Brown V Board of Education. In both cases they went out of their way to take up the case, and intentionally framed their ruling to emphasize the protection of a group over targeted injury (the word used in the ruling) to that group.

John said...

You have a point, and I don't necessarily disagree that there is a parallel, but the significant difference in Brown v Board of Education and United States v Windsor was in Brown the Court ruled in favor of a group specifically protected under the Constitution's 14 amendment. There is no such protection for Gays, and when questioned about group status neither side seemed to affirm they were a unique group.
The court does not, nor should they, have the power to arbitrarily decide what groups should be identified and singled out for protection. If such a group exists steps should be taken to amend to Constitution for their protection. That is the role of the people in this government, not the judges.

John said...

One additional data point. In Roe v Wade the State of Texas based its defense on the protection of the fetus on the requirements of the 14th Amendment. The court obviously rejected that argument.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...