Gay, Lesbian, and Female Rights

Allow me to begin this post by talking about women, the inferior sex, at least in the opinion of our democratic republic. In 1923, the equal rights amendment was introduced to congress. In order to amend the constitution in this manner, both houses in congress have to vote in favor of the bill by a 2/3 majority. The amendment then must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. There is another process to amending the constitution, but it has never been used, so we won't go there. The ERA was proposed to every congress for 49 years until it finally received a 2/3 vote from both houses of congress.

When it came to ratification by the states, only 35 of the necessary 38 states ratified the ERA. I am sad to say that my home state, Illinois, was not one of the 35 (The only other northern state not to ratify was Missouri). What were the words that caused so much controversy? Let's see if you think this is a radical amendment:

THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

That's it! Surely this amendment would have no problem passing today, right? That was just the sexism of the times. Wrong! This amendment has been proposed to every congress since it failed ratification in 1982. It was last proposed in the house by Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and in the senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA).

This bill does not even affect controversial issues like abortion. States with ERA in their state constitutions and anti-abortion laws find the two not to be in conflict. ERA does not affect marriage or allow same-sex marriage. ERA does not limit states rights, as it really only explicitly states what the 14th amendment is supposed to imply (But doesn't)

Why can't we get ERA passed????

Now onto another issue...Gay marriage.

I believe that marriage is an issue that is and should be left to the states; however, I also believe that a bill, like the ERA should be proposed with respect to LGBT rights (But let's focus on women's rights for now - we have to take baby steps). I believe that civically, LGBT people should be allowed to marry, but I also respect people's right to freely practice religion, even if their religion excludes LGBT people from religious marriage ceremonies. And that's what I think about that.

-Please Heed the Call

The Liberal Liberal (and what that means)

Historically, the term "Liberal" was used to convey a sense of the modern term "Libertarian", meaning prone to strict adherence to the constitution. In the modern sense, it has come to mean "Progressive", meaning advocate of social reform and environmental sustainability. I like to think of myself as a blending of the two, or a liberal liberal.

Some of you may be thinking, how can one support liberal policies while adhering to the concept of a limited government? I think that our founding fathers were very intelligent, in most regards. Don't get me wrong, I have some issues with them (I think the Judicial Branch is far too weak - but that is for another blog). The founding fathers drafted a constitution that is malleable enough to support sociopolitical change while intransigent enough to prevent corruption and government upheaval. The problem is that our government has ignored the constitution for so long that both good sociopolitical change and corruption have run rampant. I think this is where I take issue with the libertarians. Most libertarians want to go back to the constitution, but we've ignored it for so long that going back would erase years of the good changes that have taken place, albeit unconstitutionally.

Let's take for example, FDR's New Deal. I know some will argue, but I think that the New Deal did have, to some extent, an affect on ending the great depression. However, the New Deal was horribly unconstitutional. Most people today don't mind having good roads to drive on, social security benefits, or any of that other stuff. I also think that had the new deal been proposed as an amendment to the constitution, it probably would have passed. But alas, there is no change to the constitution.

My point: Libertarians want to repeal New Deal initiatives, I want to redraft the constitution to include all of the good political changes. Why not have every government policy of questionable constitutionality drafted within the last 50 years looked over and ratified by the public? The policies the public supports are explicitly written into the constitution; the policies unsupported are left out. We then propose STRICT adherence to the constitution.

I support social security. I support gun ownership, but I also support limitations (Private citizens do not need nukes) . I support female rights (Which, BTW, still are not expressly written in the constitution...equal rights amendment did not get ratified). I support gay and lesbian rights. I support a woman's right to choose, but I also hope she chooses adoption. I love my planet, and want to stay here for a while. I support alternative energy initiatives. I do not support war when it is not the only viable option. I believe that we, as citizens, have a moral obligation to help those in need of health care and cannot afford it. I don't support racism. I support open borders, so long as immigrants are documented. I want to see tariffs implemented again. I believe that education should be free and that no one should have to risk his/her life in the armed forces to obtain an education. I think that all drugs should be legal, but not necessarily over-the-counter. I believe that all workers have a right to a living wage.

I think that all of this can happen while strictly adhering to the constitution.

-Please Heed the Call