Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader doesn’t often get to say that the Minister of Agriculture’s reading of history is completely wrong. So please forgive him if he is a little giddy in his typing.
First off… Civil Rights did not just come about in 1954 ex nihilo as the Smallholder intimates. It was the product of nearly 200 years of wrangling and debate in our political system - as well as bloody fighting in the Civil War. And frankly the Court’s decision in 1954 just started a whole new round of political discussion which culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
If anything the Civil Rights struggle clearly illustrates the difficulties in changing societal norms. And it also shows that if you don’t have the majority of citizens behind you, no progress will be made. By the time the Civil Rights movement came to a head, there was a narrow but growing majority of Americans favouring equality for the races.
(And by the way, an activist judge is one who take it upon himself to “solve” a political problem without the input of the political process. Your Maximum Leader is plenty disappointed with judges who deliver rulings with which he agrees - but in doing so keep the issue out of public debate. And frankly, many politicans are responsible for this happening in the first place because they would rather be “told” what to do by a court than show the balls to take a stand on the record.)
Now the Smallholder claims that conservatives have already ceded that the ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. This is just wrong. The whole issue stems not from our federal Constitution, but from various state constitutions where “Equal Rights Amendments” were added in the 70s. These Equal Rights Amendments were added to redress differences between men and women. At the time they were adopted many opponents claimed that they would be used to recognize gay marriages and all sorts of other improbable situations. Of course the proponents of the Amendments said, “Poo poo! Oh stop using those logically flawed slippery slope arguments with us! These Amendments have nothing to do with Gays or anything. They are just to be used to make sure men and women are paid equal wages for equal work.” Well, it is amazing what 30 years will do to make a slippery slope argument come about.
Your Maximum Leader read over the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling concerning gay marriage. And you know something, even though he doesn’t agree with it - it makes sense if you are a lawyer. So he can easily see and understand the court’s rationale. That doesn’t mean he’s ceded anything on a national level. A state constitution can be modified - and thus state laws can be modified as a result. All these states adding Gay Marriage bans are just cutting off the courts from doing something they don’t want done.
Like the Smallholder, your Maximum Leader doesn’t think the Defence of Marriage Amendment will make it through the Senate. And according to the news while the President will seek a gay marriage ban, he is in favour of civil unions or “other legal arrangements.” And your Maximum Leader heard some talking head on Fox say that polls taken late last week show that 61% of Americans favour non-marriage legal unions that help people get benefits, legal rights, etc. This brings your Maximum Leader back to his point of last week. Namely the people want debate and discussion - not judical fiats.
It is going to be a long road for gay activists. As it should be. But it isn’t as bleak as the Smallholder makes out if gay activists would stop for a moment nd get realistic about what they can and can’t accomplish. If they insist on Andrew Sullivan-esque tirades and pouting they are not likely to acheive very much.
As for fiscal responsibility… Your Maximum Leader doesn’t think that the current batch of Republicans will rein in their spending in the near term unless the President makes them. Which he could. (Again some talking head on the news said that the President recognized that further tax cuts - that is those beyond the ones he’s already gotten and wants to make permenant - are not a good idea at this point.) Your Maximum Leader’s point was that under (even these) Republicans the starting point on spending will be lower than it would be under John Kerry. For Example: If the Republicans agree that a One Trillion Dollar program is needed for some health care thing the Democrats will say that the Republicans are nickle and diming it to death and will demand that Two Trillion Dollars be appropriated. With George Bush as President, and Republican control of both Houses of Congress, we’ll likely get the One Trillion Dollar program. If John Kerry were President the sides would negotiate down from Two Trillion towards something between One and Two to get anything passed. Thus, you spend even more. If the Smallholder doesn’t think that this is how the political system works, then he is the one with the crack pipe. He can come to the Villainschloss Library and read some accounts of budget battles between Reagan and Congressional Democrats in the 1980s to refresh his memory.
Look, is your Maximum Leader happy that the deficit is growing? No. But on the other hand, Democrats as a rule of thumb don’t give a damn about the deficit unless they can use it as a cudgel against Republicans.
All this talk is making your Maximum Leader think he should declare Nakedvillainy a “malaise-free” zone for the next few days.
Carry on.
