Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] what next?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Christian M. Cepel wrote:

> I completely disagree with this and the earlier post where it was 
> implied that the ACLU uses democratic methods.

As far as I can see, you are the first person to make any statement about 
the ACLU using "democratic methods."  I don't even know what that means. 
They are not a government agency run by elected officials.


> The ACLU bypasses all democratic/republic methods and hijacks the courts 
> _only_ through litigation.  They find a few activist judges who agree 
> with them and keep forcing things down the American people's throat that 
> would be Slammed into the dirt if taken to the American people.

Give some examples.


> An example might be made (with some tweaking) of Missouri's ban on same 
> sex marriages.  Same sex marriage is a hot topic for the ACLU, and 
> they've gone to different courts around the land to try to push their 
> agenda.  When, because of their pushing the agenda, it finally had 
> strength to be a concern to our state, it was put to the people.  The 
> people destroyed it 70% to 30%.

OK, that's one example.  Any others?

This is the first time I even heard that the ACLU had anything to do with 
same-sex marriage.  Yet, here it is:

http://www.aclu.org/getequal/

I'm supportive of equal rights for homosexuals and I oppose discrimination 
against them.  I think we should be able to protect someone's wishes in 
case they are injured.  So, you might want a certain person to care for 
you if you are disabled, but maybe your parents don't want that person to 
do it.  Unless that person is your legally-married spouse, your parents 
can probably overrule your wishes.  We should allow for you to have a 
legally-binding contract that would give you what you want.  This is more 
generally than homosexual relationships and it has nothing to do with 
marriage per se.  I think it is only fair that when a married person would 
get family benefits for his/her spouse, that a homosexual person should be 
able to get the same benefits for his/her life partner.  The latter idea 
may be controversial, and maybe it shouldn't be legislated, but it is a 
good idea for corporations to make the offer.


> The ACLU has NOTHING to do with democracy.  Nothing whatsoever, and I 
> believe you are pushing a falsehood in the hopes that nobody will pick 
> up on it and object, to suggest such a thing.

No, they do have something to do with democracy.  They work against it. 
Here is their web page on that topic:

http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html

In other words, they defend legally-guaranteed individual rights even when 
a majority opposes those rights.


> I can think of plenty of stepped on civil liberties and constitution 
> violations that they wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

Give some examples.  Seriously, I am interested.


> There's an example on The Eagle 93.9 news briefs that I really am having 
> a problem with.  They are saying that 3-4 more women in prisons have 
> requested abortions, and the recent ruling that a woman who was being 
> prevented from having one by state law was having her rights violated, 
> thus allowing her to have an abortion and be transported at taxpayer 
> expense, has now been declared by a Kansas City judge to be a class 
> action, thus allowing these women the same privileges.  I have no 
> problem with this (well, I do, but not with the wording they use). 
> What I have a problem with is their saying in the bit that it's the 
> woman's constitutional right to have an abortion.
>
> This is pure rubbish.  There is no right in the constitution to have an 
> abortion.  There is, via the RvW ruling a constitution right to privacy, 
> which encompasses her getting an abortion.
>
> Further, I have no interest in violating her privacy.  I have every 
> interest in my tax dollars not going to pay her way for transportation, 
> and of course the time of the guard(s) which must accompany her, or to 
> pay for the abortion itself (not that I have much choice in this anyway 
> thanks to federal support of PP).

OK, but you'll pay for the child delivery and a lot more.  If it's about 
money, your plan is to spend, not to save.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion