pipes and timbrels. wild ectasy.

[melannen]

Belly dancing at the writers' house tonight! And wow, did that make my middle sore fast. Also I need to finally get around to making myself some harem pants, I've only wanted some for *years*.

. . . . And the flist has gone up in controversy again. My views on the matter haven't changed in three months, I'm still annoyed that nobody's looking at this thing logically, but at the moment I'm being puzzled by all the snarking over happiness. Granted, I am not a lawyer, but I did pay attention in Mr. Bright's ninth grade law class, and my understanding was that the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" clause *had* previously been cited in constitutional law decisions, as an intent / common law / whatever sort of thing, same way as there's supposedly a "constitutional right to privacy". 'Cause, you know, we may *have* an explicit written document, but that doesn't mean we don't have a British style constitution too. And the Declaration and the Federalist Papers are a part of it.

Am I just totally makin' that up? 'Cause some of the people complaining about legal "right to happiness" arguments *are* lawyers, and I'd like to think they know what they're talking about, but it's not how *I* understand the law . . .

Random tangential anecdote: My image of traditional American weddings is intricately tied up with my understanding of the New Testament, because the first wedding I can clearly remember, I was a bridesmaid, and the couple were hours late to the reception, and therefore I had to stand outside the reception hall waiting to greet them, at night, in the dark, in my uncomfortable dress and shoes, tired and hungry and bored, staring in at the lighted room where all the other guests were already enjoying themselves . . . luckily, the lights were electric, and I did eventually get to go in. Someday I should discuss my feelings about the phrase "walk in the way of the Lord," too. . .

Comments

the umpteenth time I've posted this into an lj..

[theemptylife.livejournal.com]

More than happiness, it really comes down to a matter of the values on which our goverment stands. People can run around saying that our founding fathers wouldn't have approved of gay marriage all they want, and most likely they are correct. But those people also have no appreciation for the purpose of our government.
Our government is meant not only to facilitate democracy in this country, but to protect us from the dangers of democracy. Madison knew that democracy was flawed, which is why the federalist papers speak of factionalism and tyranny of the majority. Part of the government's purpose is to prevent the majority from abusing minorities.
People across the country have shown that they don't want gay marriage allowed. They've voted on it, and there's a chance we might even get a constitutional ammendment on it one of these days. However, all these people up in arms against gay marriage are not affected by gay marriage. They're simply offended by its very existence, mainly because there is still a great stigma against homosexuals.
And whichever angle you slice the issue on, what remains is that we should not allow the government to single out groups within our population and then deny them services, rights, privileges, whatevers, based upon our discomfort with who they are or how they live their lives. Now, its easy for me to say since I have no discomfort with homosexuals, but that doesn't make it any less true.

[reclusivewaffle.livejournal.com]

At least one person I know bases his dislike (hatred, bias, whatever) of homosexuality on his understanding of the bible. This person is not only against gay marriage, but also against gay clergy and a number of other things. The belief held is that it is wrong, a crime against god, much like stealing and murder and on.

I don't agree with this perspective, entirely, but with that belief, the issue is sliced so that you are acting to deny certain rights, services, whatever to criminals. We don't let felons vote in most places. We don't let child molesters babysit children (generally). And so forth.

This isn't as clear as I'd like, and I'm not trying to defend the position - my take is usually live and let live. But the view is out there.

--C

Re:

[theemptylife.livejournal.com]

Criminals are seen as having done some form of damage against society, thus foreiting their right to vote. And child molesters have shown that they have a problem, and therefore its best to keep them away from peoples' children lest that problem resurface and someone else actually be harmed. Some people will claim that homosexuals do harm to society, but where is the harm. If someone steals a car or kills someone, you can fairly easily see that someone is harmed by those actions. When someone molests a child, you can see the harmful effects of that too.
There is no harm done to society by homosexuality in itself, just some discomfort. And really, people need to learn to live comfortably with things they dont appreciate, or just learn to appreciate them.
It's a pattern in our society. Provocative art depicting sex is made, people get up in arms insisting that it is not art and has no place in art galleries. They could just...not go look at the art..but no, they want to make sure no one else can see it either. Someone writes an 'offensive' book and instead of just not reading it, people gather together and burn the books. It generally makes people look like idiots. A couple of years ago I remember a big mess up in New England where they started burning copies of Harry Potter books.
Right now, that discomfort is aimed at homosexual marriages.