@Trollslayer: I agree with the need for some sort of oversight, although I have not been impressed with the quality of other citizen review boards in other areas. You may be right that it would curtail abuse, but I would counter that it would be almost entirely dependent on the quality and organization of the members of the review board. Imagine your homeowner's association being in charge of the police - no thank you.
Anyway, as a resident of Mt. Pleasant, my total agreement with the existence of a major problem and my less than full support for their proposed solution matters NOTHING to North Charleston and NOTHING to the people on the other side.
It's a totally ineffective protest; sure, they get to add an arrest for civil disobedience to their social justice CV, but it was never ever going to have a chance of changing anything. The people they're attacking weren't complicit in the Walter Scott shooting and can't do anything about North Charleston police even if they're in total agreement. It doesn't matter, in a practical sense, if people in Mt. Pleasant want a citizen's review board in North Charleston or not, and attacking them isn't going to advance the conversation in your favor.
I'm curious to know what, exactly, the protesters expect Mt. Pleasant residents to do about the government of a nearby city, considering they have effectively no legitimate say in anything to do with the business of North Charleston. Whether they perceive it to be a "different" place or not, there's nothing a Mt. Pleasant resident can do in the reality of the practical world about a citizen's review board or whatever in North Charleston.
It seems ludicrous to punish people from Mt. Pleasant for not doing completely ineffective things about the situation in North Charleston. They all appear to be about to graduate from college, otherwise I'd suggest a class in civics or political science.
In addition, if the legal language regarding marriage actually was axiomatic and not gender neutral then there would be no reason for the recent (in historical terms) push for enacting legislation to insert gender into it.
The reason that we didn't have gay marriage before is that society was dominated by bigots like you, not because it was axiomatically illegal. It would have been a death sentence to do it - just as interracial marriage was, for a long time, officially legal but socially unacceptable.
I read your stupid Heritage Foundation article and see nothing in there that would strongly support a claim that the Founders have any voice in this debate. Fool me once, I guess.
Anyway, what the Founders would have thought is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Do you want to know what the Founders thought about women? About Native Americans? What most of them thought about black people? How about we give the Founders a back seat when it comes to discussions about equality for specific demographics, hm?
The PRINCIPLE that the Founders established that we are expected to consider and govern by is that ALL people are equal. That principle has (eventually) stood up for women, it stood up for black people, and it will stand up for gay people. And we will, hopefully, continue in our country's future to seek out inequality and injustice and put and end to it. Those are our founding values.
They're also your Christian ones, if you can peek around your own personal devil of bigotry to see it. There's no sweeter tongue than the voice of righteousness, but don't forget that anybody can use it. Check yourself and check your beliefs - if you're expecting to get through the golden gates on the backs of people you kept downtrodden... let's just say that even if you're right on Pascal's wager you're going to lose badly.
So what do the various interpretations and evolutions of the institution of marriage in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) or the Christian Bible have to do with the legal institution of American marriage, which is prevented by the Constitution to establish religious preference?
Again, freefirezone, are we allowed to use any ancient definitions of things similar to marriage or can we only use ancient Middle-Eastern perspectives? I mean, to avoid "re-defining" it from whatever it is you think was carved in stone...
For the record, the legal definition of American marriage was gender neutral for like 200 years until YOUR side changed it, between DOMA (1990s) or all the unconstitutional state amendments (past like 10 years). Not exactly a historical precedent for your particular favored definition of marriage.
BUT EVEN STILL, if it makes you feel any better, this is not a "re-definition" of marriage, as your religious definition is staying exactly the same. Nothing has been redefined for you. The fight you are losing is the fight to make the legal definition of marriage a relatively modern one specific to a particular religion. Which flies blatantly in the face of the U.S. Constitution, making your definition anti-American.
Even that losing battle is entirely irrelevant to your own personal situation, as I imagine that if you ever convince someone of the opposite sex that you're a decent person I assume you'd get married in whatever snake-handling church you belong to that I am sure has long since scared away the gay. So please tell me why it's such a big deal to you, a person who will never, ever, ever, ever have to be personally affected in any significant way by two other people (that you likely will already go out of your way to avoid) who love each other?
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper