Tuesday, June 28, 2011 10:41:15
Now that the second most populous state in the union, New York, has joined five other states and DC in recognizing the rights of all their citizens, thus more than doubling the number of people covered, the right is going batshit. Tony Perkins' FRC is almost literally up in arms, demanding constant prayers to strike down this law, while Rep. Akins (R-Goatf**ker) has announced that all liberals hate God.
They've got a perfect right to say these things. Says so right there in the Constitution they claim to defend while wanting to rewrite it or ignore it. Right there in the First Amendment, the very first change that was made to the Constitution, by the same guys (yea, guys) that wrote it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" is how it begins. It lists four more rights, but this is the very first thing. It was important to them.
Much as they hate the Amendment that allows me to say I think most of them are full of crap, it is that same Amendment that allows them to sell their line to anyone who'll listen, without fear that the state will intervene, as it does in China, Russia, and most Islamic countries.
As much as the Christian Right whines about how marriage equality will force them to do something unsanctioned in their churches, that's just crap. No government agency anywhere in the United States can force anyone to get married, or force any religious institution to perform or recognize a particular marriage. I know Jewish couples that aren't married according to a panel of rabbis in Israel, even though the state of California says they are. And while the Greek Orthodox catholic Church recognizes my marriage, the Roman one probably doesn't. (We didn't have it at one of the Roman-sanctioned facilities. We had it outdoors.) Regardless, the state still recognizes these marriages, and gives certain rights, responsibilities and sanctions with that recognition, by issuing its own marriage licenses.
When I read that certain religious exemptions had to be carved out of the New York bill for it to become law, I know we're dealing with people who, despite their muskets and tri-cornered hats, have no idea of this nation’s history, or the foundation that it stands on. Hint: it ain't the Bible.
Meanwhile, the government keeps ‘respecting an establishment of religion’ by allowing these religious restrictions on abortion. Every time a law further restricting access, forcing indoctrination, or permitting the intervention between a doctor and a patient, (something that has never been done in the United States until this subject came up,) that government is violating the First Amendment.
A side note: Isn’t government telling you or your doctor what you can or can’t talk about, and when, and for how long, exactly what the teabaggers falsely accuse Democrats of including in the Affordable Care Act? Just asking…
I can see not forcing catholic hospitals to perform abortions. I can also see not giving tax dollars to entities that don’t do what needs to be done, just as No Child Left Behind, the right-wing’s baby, cuts off money for schools that don’t perform, and just like states that don’t raise the drinking age to 21 are cut-off from federal highway funds.
If an entire organization, Planned Parenthood, can have its Medicaid funds cut-off because, of its 24 locations in the state of Indiana, 3 perform abortions, then why continue to provide subsidies to catholic schools and catholic hospitals for any of their other functions? Not talking tax exemption here, talking actual tax dollars that buy school books, and send buses, provide hot lunches and special needs equipment, and that’s just at the schools.
Cause they’re all run by the same organization, the catholic archdiocese of wherever. And, even if some Supreme Court ruling have said these state contributions respecting an establishment of religion are legal, they can, as was done to Planned Parenthood in Indiana, just as easily be made illegal, and using the same logic.
Don’t get me started on using the same logic to justify making illegal all political donations, from any government contractor or recipient of an industry-specific tax deduction, to any politician who approved that program, because at least some of the funds donated came from the money that politician ‘gacve’ to that corporation. “Because it’s all fungible, and can’t be separated,” at least according to the Indiana legislature. Where the ends always justify the means.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 11:45:54
No comments:
Post a Comment