The Pursuit of Happiness

If the renaissance began Nov 5, 2008, why then are we still confused over why denying same sex couples the full right of marriage is a fight for civil rights? 

We are dealing with civil law and not religious doctrine. Our government is not a theocracy. We are a nation of civil laws and not religious laws although they sometimes look the same. Because the majority of our civil codes mimic what you would find in religious doctrine does not in any way signal that we are a nation governed by religious doctrine.

Our laws are there to protect each citizen’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is translated to mean that no man shall harm another in his life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. These aspects are listed among the inalienable rights of man. Since our discussion focuses on California Ballot Proposition 8 let’s do some research. The “pursuit of happiness” is set forth by the constitution of California thereby making it enforceable as a fundamental right. It states in its declaration of rights:

SECTION 1.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.  Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

With this declaration of rights for the people of California this means that no man shall interfere or harm another in his pursuit of those inalienable rights. The inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness is the right of men to pursue their happiness in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others.

“The United States Supreme Court, in recognizing that marriage is a fundamental right, stated that “the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.”

We should take care not to impose religious definitions of marriage on our civil codes. This creates problems because the act is viewed differently even among the religions. As an example marriage in Catholic Church is a sacrament which means it is sanctioned by the church and is both a natural and supernatural institution. The supernatural aspect is hardly compatible to our form of secular government. If one is Catholic all the rules governing that sacrament are applied such as being in good standing, union between a male and female (it is curious that no age is implied), not closely related (has changed meanings over time), both partners Christians and at least one catholic (also a change from both had to be Catholic), free of prior marriage (meaning the spouse must be deceased or a church nullity was granted). As a Catholic one is married through the church and that marriage is then recognized by the State. So at a minimum Catholics have a civil and a religious union where the civil union is the state’s recognition of the religious union. The religious union satisfies the spiritual objectives of the church however it is the legal union that is enforceable by our government.

There have been many discussions over the differences between the struggles of the Gay Community and African-American Struggles. In our form of government these comparisons are unnecessary. Our Federal and State constitutions make no distinctions between rights. They protect and guarantee all civil rights equally for all of its citizens and classes of citizens. No civil right has priority or outweighs another no matter how heinous the effects endured by the loss of that civil right is. Whether you’re owned by another as in the case of African-Americans or you were denied your right to life in the case of Matthew Shepard because of some class membership. Both are considered EQUAL in protection under the laws of this nation.

So to argue how the denial of the civil rights of African-Americans is different and more important than those sought by Gays even if the right is simply equality in marriage is a specious argument. We must be careful that the struggles of African-Americans in their fight for equality do not become the yardstick for the legitimacy of other civil rights struggles. The systematic denial of any right to ANY citizen is an offense based on factors like socio-economic background, class, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and religion. Race alone is not the only factor. I certainly understand the emotion but our system demands OBJECTIVITY. A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with, no matter how big or small, by another gives rise to an action for injury. Discrimination occurs when ANY civil right of ANY CITIZEN is denied or interfered with because of membership in a particular group or class.

The California Judiciary has to determine if the enactment and enforcement of PROP 8 is a RISK FACTOR for the civil liberties of ANY California citizen or citizen group. If it is found to be, then it will NOT be enacted. That means that if the good citizens of California decide that they want to amend their constitution to define “state sanctioned” marriage, then it will be necessary to follow the process for amending the state constitution because the California Supreme Court has published a brief on this matter which means that the denial of marriage to same sex couples is a interference of their pursuit of happiness and is therefore they MUST be protected under the constitution of the state of California.

In order to change marriage rules and guidelines it will be necessary to amend state constitutions in order to codify whatever religious beliefs that are being sought to restrict marriage to an act between a male and female.

There have been many comparisons between pedophilia, polygamy, child marriage, etc but it is important to note that these acts are ILLEGAL and until the state of California outlaws homosexuality and makes it a crime it is UNFAIR and DISHONESST for religious leaders such as Rick Warren to casually make comparisons between these acts and homosexuality. This demonstrates ignorance on his part that is borne out in a form of bigotry.

There are very basic formulas underlying our constitutional form of government and they work quite well when executed properly. Here is an example:

If the Constitution guarantees and protects 10 rights for its citizens, then ALL of its CITIZENS are guaranteed those 10 rights until the constitution is amended to remove privileges to those 10 rights for an individual, class, group, etc.

Marriage between same sex partners cannot be restricted until homosexuality is made unlawful. Without this there is not a court in this land that will interfere or harm another man in his pursuit of happiness.

Wildweezle(© Wildweezle Enterprises)

Advertisements

How To Lose An Election

Well Team, the weezle has been on lockdown since the election but I’m back ready to take on our new administration and its policies. But before getting into that, I thought we should do a lessons learned exercise to help the Republicans with the upcoming 2012 presidential election. Well to start I can think of 100 reasons why John McCain lost the election. Please add to the list in case I missed some.

100 or more ways in which John McCain lost the election

1.       John McCain

2.       Sarah Palin

3.       Cindy McCain

4.       The Economy

5.       The House of Representatives

6.       Crude Oil

7.       Nursery Rhymes like, “drill-baby-drill”

8.       The Republican Party

9.       Phil Graham

10.   Sean Hannity

11.   Poor judgment

12.   Elisabeth Hasselbeck

13.   Rush Limbaugh

14.   Bill O’Reilly

15.   Homes

16.   Hatred

17.   Deceit

18.   Hypocrisy

19.   George W Bush

20.   Dick Cheney

21.   Rev Wright

22.   Father Michael Pleger

23.   William Ayers

24.   Bernadine Dohrn

25.   “Joe The Plumber”

26.   “Tito The Builder”

27.   Kevin James

28.   Tucker Bounds

29.   Pigs, pit bulls, and moose

30.   The Straight Talk Express

31.   Tina Fey

32.   Katie Couric

33.   David Letterman

34.   The Blackberry

35.   The Computer

36.   The Internet

37.   Knowledge

38.   Intelligence

39.   Education

40.   Community Organizers

41.   Iowa

42.   Ohio

43.   Pennsylvania, especially Western Pennsylvania

44.   Indiana

45.   Wisconsin

46.   Florida

47.   North Carolina

48.   Virginia

49.   New Hampshire

50.   Colorado

51.   Nevada

52.   New Mexico

53.   Kenyan Witchdoctors named Bishop Thomas Muthee

54.   Mitt Romney

55.   Rudy Giuliani

56.   Steve Schmidt

57.   Richard Davis

58.   “My Friends”

59.   Country First

60.   Michelle Bachman

61.   Green Backdrops

62.   Public Campaign Financing

63.   Age and temperament

64.   Town Hall Meetings

65.   Terrorists

66.   Socialists

67.   Poor Judgment

68.   Mike Huckabee

69.   Wall Street

70.   Officer Mike Scott

71.   Keith Olbermann

72.   Rachel Maddow

73.   Miss Buffalo Chip Beauty Pageant

74.   Joe Lieberman

75.   Charlie Crist

76.   Germans

77.   Blogs

78.   Joe Six-pack

79.   Political debates

80.   Iraq

81.   The surge

82.   Iran

83.   Bombs

84.   Sturgis, South Dakota

85.   Rev Rick Warren and the Saddleback Church

86.   “Iranian Al Qaeda Extremists”

87.   “Liberal Conservative Republicanism”

88.   The Bridge to nowhere

89.   Hockey Moms

90.   Religion

91.   Bigotry

92.   Neiman Marcus

93.   Colin Powell

94.   Hurricane Ike

95.   Lipstick

96.   Geography

97.   Wasilla, Alaska

98.   Russia

99.   The whole wide world

100.  And finally, “That one”!

Where Will the Opposition Come From?

As the American Political System transforms, evolves, and moves forward there is however a wasteland where failed ideas, opinions, strategies, and politicians are cast aside. That wasteland contains many notables such as Richard Nixon, Ross Perot, and Spiro T Agnew, Mark Foley, the list is long; Hillary Clinton’s original health plan; the original Iraq War Strategy, and a viable third party in US politics, all seemed at the time to be well thought out and possibly successful, but were later discredited. Well that junkyard is about to get some more scrap heap in the way of political strategy and methodologies, politicians, and political obstructionist if the 2008 presidential election goes the way it is going two days prior to the election.

As the election season draws to a close with the possibility of major change in the air, a change that the electorate hungers for, a change that could grant ruling party status in both the executive and legislative branches of our government. The American electorate hungers for an effective government, a responsive government, and an efficiently run government so it seems to be flexing its power in this election cycle by this authority to the Democratic Party. The Electorate seems to have matured and transformed and does not fear the prospects of a Democratic President and a Democratic majority Congress.

The electorate also hungers for effective and responsive opposition. But to the American Electorate, opposition is not obstruction. For years the electorate has witnessed our government paralyzed by the obstructionist processes of our political institutions which have caused deterioration of our political institutions and its operations. The opposition view can be best described using the table view principle. Place objects on a square table and seat a person at each end of the table. Ask each to draw and describe what they see on the table. The responses you receive will be different. Why, because each person will have a different viewpoint of the table. In some cases the responses could be the same depending on what is seen and how it is viewed. The importance is that viewpoints are not right or wrong (left or right) but necessary in order to understand the makeup of the table. The most complete picture is in the combination of all of the viewpoints of the table.

For 30 – 40 years it has been chic to define opposition as being obstructionist even manifesting itself in our media where several news organizations have willingly participated in this strategy. The definition of opposition is not the person or group whose focus is resistance, combat, antagonism, and hostility. It is the person or group that provides the opposing view designed to ensure that a more complete view is attained at all times. The value of the opposition party is to present those viewpoints that are different from the dominant party to ensure the complete picture. The American Electorate has transformed and it defines opposition far differently than the media and certainly the McCain campaign defines it.

Those practicing obstruction strive to IMPEDE, DELAY, BLOCK, and UNDERMINE the political process as with the use of the filibuster as a weapon rather than a tool in a Congress that isn’t veto-proof. Because the definition of opposition has changed, the electorate doesn’t fear the possibility of a veto-proof Congress because it has seen the stalemates for many years in our political institutions and find them no longer acceptable. Opposition is not the action of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchannan, and Bill O’Reilly, these are obstructionists whose actions do not bring value to the smooth execution of the government process but seeks to undermine differing viewpoints causing chokepoints in our government. It is safe to say that attempts to undermine any possible Obama presidency are underway in full swing.

So where is that opposition going to come from? Do you get the sense that it will not come from the current Republican Party? A party with a clear leadership vacuum; A party that has demonstrated that it does not understand transformation; A party that refused to refine the strategy and messages that were being delivered during this election cycle; A party that went in with a strategy to discredit Barack Obama at all levels, from the presidency down to local campaigns. Their message and party was rejected by the greater electorate but they stuck to it even to the point where it seems as if they are about to ride it over a cliff. Colin Powell described this strategy and the message as nonsensical.

The leadership failings of the current Republican Party are dramatic. This leadership vacuum allowed the selection of Sarah Palin as the VP candidate when there were numerous qualified individuals available for nomination. The Republican Party does not realize the size of the hole that was dug here. The electorate overwhelmingly rejected Sarah Palin and what will the other qualified individuals who were not selected do? They will in 4 years ask us to consider casting our vote for them. However, none of these individuals will be able to convince the electorate that they are worthy because in this year’s election they were deemed to be less qualified than Sarah Palin, who is perhaps the most embarrassing and least qualified candidate ever.

So where will our opposition politics come from?

Judging from this year’s response to Ralph Nader is he still effective?

Should the Republican Party have a Come-to-Jesus, evaluate itself, perhaps change, split, or just dissolve?

There could be a ray of hope out there. Over the past several weeks we’ve seen numerous Republicans and conservatives come out in support of Barack Obama. Many of those endorsements could be considered protest endorsements but for the majority most were the results of well thought-out analysis and presented in a manner that was professional and respectful of our political system. These endorsements have come from individuals, groups, and organizations.

So where are the seeds of our parliamentary and social opposition for the next governing cycle?

So let’s explore?

Michael Smerconish, a registered Republican and conservative talk radio host broke with 28 years of personal tradition and decided to endorse Barack Obama. In the era of political party allegiance this is a mortal sin as witnessed by the amount of messages disagreeing with his decision and choice. But could there be a silver lining in Mr. Smerconish’s action? I think so. Mr. Smerconish two days prior to Mr. Conlin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama released the results of the analysis that led him to his decision. His analysis included several categories of interest, such as leadership, analytical abilities, foreign policy, etc. It was an extremely detailed analysis and I’m sure that Mr. Smerconish knew that he would encounter allegiance issues if he were to accept the conclusions of his analysis and endorse Mr. Obama. But Mr. Smerconish demonstrated leadership and strength and did what was required of him in supporting the best solution.

So Michael Smerconish had an America First Moment (AFM), defined as behaving in a manner that takes into consideration the effects of personal behavior and decisions on the American Community prior to acting. Michael’s willingness to consider the American Community was a true America First Moment. But will Mr. Smerconish have the enabling infrastructure in which to present his opposition views in the Republican Party; If not the Republican Party then where? Mr. Smerconish’s support of Mr. Obama was critical but his opposition views will be more critical.

The most visible of the cross-over endorsements was of course Colin Powell. Mr. Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama like Mr. Smerconish’s was extremely well thought-out. He even mentioned that he toiled over his decision for months. Mr. Powell gave a comprehensive endorsement of Barack Obama. He listed his reasons in a clear, concise, and succinct manner so all could see which categories were important to him and how he arrived at this important decision

Colin Powell showed the utmost respect to our nation, and its political institutions, and to the men and women who have died granting us the opportunity to vote and some who will give their lives today in far-away lands to guarantee our rights to vote. Colin Powell did not belittle the process by standing on his front porch and shouting out his endorsement of Mr. Obama. Mr. Powell labored over this decision for many months by spending the time researching and analyzing the behavior and character of both candidates and only then did he arrive at his decision. This type of analysis was lost on Tom Brokow, Pat Buchannan, and Rush Limbaugh who entertained the thought that his decision was based on race. Mr. Powell’s actions were clearly an American First Moment!

So Mr. Powell becomes another possible opposition because he has emphatically stated that he remains a Republican and if the Republican Party survives it will be important for Mr. Powell to be a key voice of opposition.

We now visit the media as a voice of opposition. Barack Obama has dominated media endorsements. We focus on many which are well known as conservative and have endorsed Republican candidates in recent elections:

1.       The Denver Post

2.       The Chicago Tribune

3.       Austin American-Statesman

4.       The Salt Lake Tribune

5.       Wisconsin State Journal

6.       Houston Chronicle

It is the Houston Chronicle that we will focus on because the endorsements of the other newspapers followed the same analysis that was so detailed in the Houston Chronicle. The Houston Chronicle known as a conservative media outlet, analyzed several categories of concern prior to reaching a decision: VP Choice; Terrorism; Economy; Opportunity; taxes, Healthcare; Social Concerns; Intellect and temperament; Ability to build coalitions; Foreign Policy; Analytical thinking; etc. In all cases with the exception of terrorism the Houston Chronicle arrived at the conclusion that Barack Obama was the most capable candidate.

Opposition will demand that a substantial portion of our news media offer vigilance over a possible one rule government. As long as the opposition being presented is the different viewpoints of the problem space then the American Public will benefit substantially and the media could be an important enabling infrastructure and platform for the presentation of opposition views.

Once again, opposition in the media is not the actions of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchannan, and Bill O’Reilly. Obstructionism will not find a place in the politics of our future. Our media should be finding ways to enable opposition viewpoints now and not ways to enable the undermining of our government institutions.

This is just a small analysis of the potential opposition resources that could play a key role in our future governing body. There are many other possible voices such as well known conservatives like Christopher Buckley, members of the Goldwater family, and others who will have to find or provide the enabling infrastructure in which to present opposition views especially if the Republican Party fails to transform itself.

Regardless, on November 5, 2008 when the RENAISSANCE begins, our government will not operate as it has in the past and each of us will have a responsibility to ensure its success. The difference will come in those who will take ownership!

Wildweezle (© Wildweezle Enterprises) 

November 5, 2008 – The Renaissance Begins!

COMING SOON!

PREPARE YOURSELF

 

 

Published in: on October 27, 2008 at 2:15 am  Comments (1)  
Tags: , ,