The Right Guy Show

An old fashioned libertarian’s view on the world

Archive for the ‘Thomas Jefferson’ Category

America’s One Party System: Big Government

with one comment

H/T Skeptical Eye

From Skeptical Eye:

“The Judge makes a distinction between rights and goods per a question about the “right” to heath care. But any such right would violate someone else’s rights, because you can’t have the right to a good, be it the right to health care or the right to food or clothing, without making a claim on the life of another. Whether that claim is in the form of the theft called taxes (to pay for your “right”) or in the time and services of the supplier of that good (Doctors who must treat you because you have a “right” to their talents in the field of medicine), it is in fact destructive of real rights (the right to the fruits of one’s labor and the right to be free from coercion and slavery), and so cannot be a right itself.”

Ayn Rand said something similar:

“Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation
of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man
can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded
duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no
such thing as “the right to enslave”. — Ayn Rand

Or Thomas Jefferson:

“Jefferson believed that each individual has “certain inalienable rights.” That is, these rights exist with or without government; man cannot create, take, or give them away. It is the right of “liberty” on which Jefferson is most notable for expounding. He defines it by saying “rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Hence, for Jefferson, though government cannot create a right to liberty, it can indeed violate it. And the limit of an individual’s rightful liberty is not what law says it is but is simply a matter of stopping short of prohibiting other individuals from having the same liberty. A proper government, for Jefferson, is one that not only prohibits individuals in society from infringing on the liberty of other individuals, but also restrains itself from diminishing individual liberty.”

We’ve gotten very from whence we came. God bless Judge Napolitano.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Written by James Lagnese

March 9, 2010 at 8:50 pm

Bow Out

leave a comment »

A lot has been made out of Obama’s obeisance and obsequiousness to the Saudi King. In our history, the presents that have presided in the beginning of the centuries have helped define America’s role in the world. Thomas Jefferson replaced the bow with the handshake and Theodore Roosevelt saw himself as at least a first among equals if not a superior. In our century we have a president that bows before rulers of kingdoms that we have little or no respect for except their ability to pump oil out of the ground, and it’s a skill they learned from us. Either Obama has no respect of the office of president, or he is such a person that will do anything to placate friends and enemies. Obama has more in common with that sherry and cheddar surrender monkey Neville Chamberlain every day. If you disagree and think the latest pirate escapade and SEAL rescue proves me wrong, think again. Go Navy.
Obama’s bow may be a harbinger of things to come. May be this signals the US bowing out as a world superpower. Time will tell. Obama is not a deliberate man and he telegraphs his intentions. This makes him an easy mark for the likes of China, Russia, Iran etc. Whatever the case, Obama’s administration will mark the direction this country takes in this century, and it is not a good one.
Thank you for reading this blog.

Written by James Lagnese

April 8, 2009 at 5:56 am

Barack Hussein Obama: From Messiah to Inept in Four Easy Steps

leave a comment »

  1. Get Elected
  2. Hire Clueless Socialist Lackeys, I mean Yes Men
  3. Have a Democrat controlled congress
  4. Follow their lead by signing every Keynesian bill into law

Props to Obama for getting elected. Not only did he make it to the top, but he was a mulatto man making it to the top. The problem is, having is a lot different than wanting. Thomas Jefferson said it best: “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ” Obama has Marxist principles, and you could argue that he is standing like a rock with them, but I would say he isn’t. he’s practicing an incrementalism towards socialism and he’s gauging how far and how quickly he can progress, but I digress. For all his imputed intelligence, for all his hope and change, for all his marxist ideology, he really is in over his head. I would say he is more over his head than kennedy was in 1962. The problem is that he has beliefs that are not proven in praxis. Government controlled economies do not work well, particularly on large scales. He also underestimates the average american’s desire to be free. Free from government intrusion, and from taxes. He over estimates the chicken little factor that got him in office. He probably truly believes that he is the answer to our problems.

Here is the scary part. There are two methods used in the business world to accomplish things: Make the right decision, or make the decision and then make it right. You could say this applies to many things in life. So, is Obama a true believer, or a gangster? If he is a crusader, he will continue to push his agenda, no matter what the reality is, and shove it down our throats. If he is a gangster, he will fall in love with power (he already has to a great degree), and it won’t really matter. He will do whatever is necessary to remain in power to serve his ego. FDR is a prime example of this. Still, gangsters can still make bad decisions, it’s just that the decisions suit their success more than their beliefs. Either way, if they make the wrong decision, they will likely try to make it right. I don’t believe Obama has the humility to admit he is wrong. He has politicians disease.
Anyway, the bottom line is he’s floundering, flailing, and looking for a straw man. His decisions will have to be made right and I am sure the membership of the journolist will do everything they can to make that happen. And now that our national debt has reached 11 trillion, He’s going to have to blame someone. Needless to say though, the printing presses at the treasury will be working overtime to pay for all of it, and of course so will we for generations. Thanks America, for electing such a schmuck.
Thank you for reading this blog.

Written by James Lagnese

March 17, 2009 at 8:55 pm

Where Has The Time Gone

leave a comment »


I’ve ben at this damn blog for over 6 months now and I finally realized, where had the time gone? Tempus Fugit as they say or Time Flees, which it has. In the this time I believe I have expounded my thoughts passably at times, but lately I find myself conforming to the republican template too much, following Team Geppetto’s lead in the malignant populism that both sides of the isle participate in, in order to manipulate us to their will. I think I have gotten away from my original theme which is of course freedom. Yes nebulous, sacrosanct, misunderstood and least appreciated, freedom. 


I’ve often quoted Thomas Jefferson’s definition of liberty, which is “that each individual has ‘certain inalienable rights’…these rights exist with or without government; man cannot create, take, or give them away…rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual…though government cannot create a right to liberty, it can indeed violate it. And the limit of an individual’s rightful liberty is not what law says it is but is simply a matter of stopping short of prohibiting other individuals from having the same liberty. A proper government…is one that not only prohibits individuals in society from infringing on the liberty of other individuals, but also restrains itself from diminishing individual liberty.” Without this, everything else is meaningless, feckless, and irrelevant. Everything in one’s life becomes a necessary tool for indentured servitude at the hands of someone else’s power. 

That being said, I have become a tool myself, to the templates popular social and economic fears. It’s not that there is nothing to be afraid or that there aren’t problems, but I won’t assist some greater political power get back in power. At the very least politics is a fickle mistress who easily forgets who paid her way but knows whose door to knock on when times are tough. It’s time to throw the harlot to the street. There is no right or left, just right and wrong. To that end I will be true to myself. Yes, there will be times when I will seem to insult, I will exact revenge with wit and a macabre yet dry sense of humor. I will piss everyone off eventually. Everyone. The one thing I will never do is talk about my work, or talk about family anymore. Everything else is fair game. 

So let the games begin, to begin anew and begin they will. I may not post as often, but hopefully I will post better content and different as well. I promise that by my birthday I will publish at least one podcast. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I hope you continue reading it, and I would hope to get a few more people on board. Thanks again.

The Right Guy

Written by James Lagnese

January 26, 2009 at 6:59 pm

Mid-West Pragmatism: The Response

leave a comment »

I received a response from Brian Gongol Earlier in the week. I apologize for not getting back to Brian and anyone else in regards to this subject. I will furnish below Brian’s email in it’s entirety and I will respond where I feel appropriate. Thank you Brian for responding to me.  

“appreciate that you were listening yesterday, but I’m disappointed that you chose to criticize without digging a little deeper. In the process of comparing me to a pedophile and calling me a moron, you suggested outright that I would like the idea of putting GPS trackers on cars.

It just so happens that I wrote an essay four years ago proposing an alternative to the gas tax that specifically avoids the use of liberty-eroding GPS trackers:

http://www.gongol.com/research/economics/replacinggastax/

For what it’s worth, I suspect that you and I probably agree on a lot. But it’s really hard to be an advocate for small government when my own supposed comrades are out there saying “then again may be he likes grabbing his ankles”. You’re free to say whatever you like, but I’ll invite you to name one person in local radio who tries harder to advocate for liberty than I do.

– Brian Gongol

—–
Brian Gongol
Host, “The Brian Gongol Show” and “WHO Radio Wise Guys” on Newsradio 1040 WHO
http://www.gongol.com”

First off, I will say that my sense of humor has escaped Mr. Gongol (Unless you know me or hear me, this is understandable). Being from NY and having such comic influences as Carlin, Pryor, Hackett, and Clay, I will say my sensibilities are probably a little different than most people west of the Hudson River. 

I will admit I only get about 15-20 minutes to listen to what is normally the Steve Deace Show. That afternoon, what I did hear was Mr. Gongol’s equivocation on the subject of a carbon tax vs. an increased fuel tax. I would think unless you are left of center, a socialist or subscribe to Keynesian economics, I would think that most people, Mr. Gongol included, would eschew a carbon tax from the standpoint that man caused global warming is rubbish. From what I have heard from him in the past, I have discerned that he is indeed an educated man. I will put forth this to Mr. Gongol: You said someone has to pay for it. How about calling for fiscal responsibility and cut backs? I am not an economist, my background is American History and Information Technology, but it would seem to me that not only are we spending more that we take in, but we are borrowing more to pay off the debt. While raising taxes is one way to solve the problem, the problem I have is that taxes are a tithe and based on where the money goes, an unwanted one. Moreover, in order for me, or anyone else to pay taxes, we have to work. Work takes time and time is a commodity that is both limited and the amount we have we never know and we can never get back once it is gone. To that extent, I see compulsory taxes, no matter how well intentioned or done “for the greater good” to be a form of indentured servitude. We cannot spend our way of of debt, and it is egregious to burden ourselves and future generations with more debt and taxes. To me, the trade off is not worth it, but then again, I am probably an anachronism. Most people seem to be fine with being bribed with their own money, labor and therefore time. 
As far as who fights for liberty more than you? I don’t listen to local radio all that much as I find it boring, with the exception of Steve Deace and J. Michael “Mac” McCoy. Steve would be more liberty oriented if Jesus didn’t get in the way, and Mac can be just nuts. More than me. When I think of proponents of liberty, I think of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams. I also like Robert Nozick and Ayn Rand (if I were an economist, I’d probably think of Hayek, von Mises and Friedman). Who do you think of when you think of liberty? Thank you for responding to my post, I appreciate it. 
Jim
Thank you for reading this blog. 

Written by James Lagnese

January 3, 2009 at 8:07 pm

Cannoli Numero Uno: The Sweet Taste of Freedom

with 2 comments


My friend Vince Cohen likes to call my writing style a cannoli. Perfectly self-contained and wherein lies the beginning, the middle and the end, of which covers everything it sets out to cover. So to that effect, I have decided to call the essays I write from henceforth Cannolis. Actually, the term cannoli is a plural in Italian, and if you need to know what a cannoli is, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannoli. I prefer sfoliatella, but then again I am Napolitano.


There have been a lot of discussions on blogs of late about the violence, anger and rudeness associated with the reaction to the marriage amendments that have passed in several states. These negative reactions have primarily and largely been from the homosexual community. Some believe this is necessary as the gay community is fomenting revolution and they may do so by any means necessary. Others take a more balanced and sane approach and realize that making enemies of their position is not the correct way to proceed.

On one side of the argument are religious fundamentalists. Included in this group, but not limited to are the Mormons and Evangelical Christians. Their position is that a marriage is between one man and one woman (at one time Mormons allowed one man and many women, but currently this is not the case). This position is consistent with Judaism and Christianity as it is related to scripture and doctrine. I think this position is fine from the standpoint that people have a right to their religious beliefs, even if it conflicts with what others believe, and as long it is not illegal.

On the other side of the argument we have the gay community and other liberal minded folks. Gays believe that marriage, as a legal instrument through the government, should be open to any two human beings. It would be my guess that some also believe it should be allowed in all churches and synagogues, but I do not know the full extent to of that. In an effort to promulgate equality, some states have legislated that gay marriage is legal. In other states, changes to marriage law if you will have been attained through the courts. The rub of late is that four states passed referenda that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. I believe those states are California, Arizona, Michigan and Florida.

The reaction by the gay community has been dramatic and at times violent, intrusive, rude, disgusting and illegal. Going into houses of worship and throwing used condoms on parishioners, spray painting churches, engaging in sex acts in church bathrooms, and other disruptive acts during services is the wrong thing to do and it causes people that would otherwise support gay rights with marriage to the very least turn away in indifference. Some have told me it is a revolution that must be won by any means necessary. Some believe as I do, others have remained indifferent. So where’s the beef?

The problem is that we are dealing with two different authorities. One is common law and the other is religious law. Article I of the Bill Of Rights states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  This portion of the first amendment affirms what it believed to be a natural right that people may believe and worship as they desire and just as important, the government shall not have an official religion. The reason for this is that at the time of the founding documents, England and other countries had official religions. In England, in order to hold certain positions in government or academia, a person had to be a member of the Church of England. In the case of the latest skirmish in regards to gay marriage, some of the religious folk have been accused of taking Church doctrine and law, and trying to create legislation based on it. I believe this is arguably true. Conversely, is it true that the gays are trying to change church doctrine? More accurately, it is seen that the gay agenda is trying to change the very moral fabric of society.

If gays were trying to change church law and doctrine, I would agree that is egregious in that using the current methods it would be an infringement of people’s religious freedoms and it would also be intolerant. Again, people have the right to believe as they wish. I am not so sure this is the case and if it is, they lost me here. On the other hand, I think they are correct in wanting equality in the eyes of the law. What religious fundamentalists seem to not realize is that in order to make a law that marriage is only between a man and a woman, I believe that the only way to do this legally, is to make homosexuality illegal. I cannot for the life of me see how this would be possible. In my opinion, gays are born that way. Just as a black person cannot change their skin color, a gay person cannot change their inborn sexuality. The rub with bible thumpers is that they believe that homosexuality is a choice. This has to be true for them because if they admitted that homosexuals were born that way it would imply, due to scripture and church doctrine, that god made a mistake. This is where I believe the conflict arises with them. God can’t make mistakes. As Obama said, that is above my pay grade. All I know or believe is that they were born the way they are, just as I was born the way I am. Was it a mistake? Ask god.

The only solution I see to this mess is a separation of church and state. The first assumption is that marriage is a religious concept. Only churches can marry and it is in the eyes of god. On the other hand, for marriages to be recognized by the state for legal purposes, there exists a legal standard in issuing of a license for that purpose. Only the state can regulate the legal aspects of a common law union. So, to this effect, the state should create or change marriage licenses to common law union licenses for everyone. This document establishes a legal relationship so as to settle estates, living wills, probate, etc. If the people who obtain a common law union license wish to have their marriage recognized in a religion, which is up to the religion to decide who may or may not be married in their church/synagogue. Through this separation, equality can exist within the natural rights of people.

“Jefferson believed that each individual has ‘certain inalienable rights.’ That is, these rights exist with or without government; man cannot create, take, or give them away. It is the right of ‘liberty’ on which Jefferson is most notable for expounding. He defines it by saying rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. It is not ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Hence, for Jefferson, though government cannot create a right to liberty, it can indeed violate it. And the limit of an individual’s rightful liberty is not what law says it is but is simply a matter of stopping short of prohibiting other individuals from having the same liberty. A proper government, for Jefferson, is one that not only prohibits individuals in society from infringing on the liberty of other individuals, but also restrains itself from diminishing individual liberty (Appleby and Ball, p224, 1999).

The previous paragraph is how I see liberty and freedom on this earth and in the universe. If we could all live by this, which is an extension of Christ’s commandments, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, we all would be better off. What prevents this, in my opinion, is that people want power. In an ideal state of liberty and freedom, no one, including the government, has more power than any other individual or entity. Human beings, due to their survival instincts, look for an advantage. Part of an advantage is to look for power over others. Be that as it may, the quest for power relegates the desire for equality to second place. I think this is something that some wish not to admit. Take this particular issue, if my solution was implemented, which I believe offers the greatest chance at justice and equality, I would bet that neither side would be satisfied because equality is not the ultimate goal of either side. It is the promulgation of their respective agendas and the power that would be gained by the hegemony thereof that may be the true goal. If this is the case, then a pox on both your houses.

The latest war on liberties demonstrates the quest for power. The Mormons and other religious groups use the government to promulgate their religious views in law. The gay community is infringing on people’s individual right to practice religion when they perpetrate acts in religious places and moreover, expose people that contribute as individuals to campaigns that promulgate religious views. In as much as the courts may strike down the referenda, a person’s individual right to practice religion and participate peacefully in a political process should not be violated by anyone. What baffles me about the rude and unlawful behavior is that in every case that I recall, the courts have struck down such referenda. My question is, why the militant behavior? Considering gays account for less than 10% of the population, it’s a literal fight that can’t be won by those means, and I would suggest it won’t end well in the end. My advice would be to use the courts to seek justice in this case, and the legislature if necessary, but above all, the rights of people on both sides of the issue must be respected if we are to have equality and justice. My favorite civil rights advocate is Frederick Douglass. While Mr. Douglass said “Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will. Show me the exact amount of wrong and injustices that are visited upon a person and I will show you the exact amount of words endured by these people.” Demand does not equal unlawful, disgusting or rude acts. While I believe there are instances where people may act in kind, or in effect to defend oneself, this is not one of them.

Thank you for reading this blog.



References

Appleby and Ball (1999) Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, April 4, 1819 from Thomas Jefferson

Written by James Lagnese

November 25, 2008 at 11:05 pm

Cannoli Numero Uno: The Sweet Taste of Freedom

leave a comment »


My friend Vince Cohen likes to call my writing style a cannoli. Perfectly self-contained and wherein lies the beginning, the middle and the end, of which covers everything it sets out to cover. So to that effect, I have decided to call the essays I write from henceforth Cannolis. Actually, the term cannoli is a plural in Italian, and if you need to know what a cannoli is, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannoli. I prefer sfoliatella, but then again I am Napolitano.


There have been a lot of discussions on blogs of late about the violence, anger and rudeness associated with the reaction to the marriage amendments that have passed in several states. These negative reactions have primarily and largely been from the homosexual community. Some believe this is necessary as the gay community is fomenting revolution and they may do so by any means necessary. Others take a more balanced and sane approach and realize that making enemies of their position is not the correct way to proceed.

On one side of the argument are religious fundamentalists. Included in this group, but not limited to are the Mormons and Evangelical Christians. Their position is that a marriage is between one man and one woman (at one time Mormons allowed one man and many women, but currently this is not the case). This position is consistent with Judaism and Christianity as it is related to scripture and doctrine. I think this position is fine from the standpoint that people have a right to their religious beliefs, even if it conflicts with what others believe, and as long it is not illegal.

On the other side of the argument we have the gay community and other liberal minded folks. Gays believe that marriage, as a legal instrument through the government, should be open to any two human beings. It would be my guess that some also believe it should be allowed in all churches and synagogues, but I do not know the full extent to of that. In an effort to promulgate equality, some states have legislated that gay marriage is legal. In other states, changes to marriage law if you will have been attained through the courts. The rub of late is that four states passed referenda that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. I believe those states are California, Arizona, Michigan and Florida.

The reaction by the gay community has been dramatic and at times violent, intrusive, rude, disgusting and illegal. Going into houses of worship and throwing used condoms on parishioners, spray painting churches, engaging in sex acts in church bathrooms, and other disruptive acts during services is the wrong thing to do and it causes people that would otherwise support gay rights with marriage to the very least turn away in indifference. Some have told me it is a revolution that must be won by any means necessary. Some believe as I do, others have remained indifferent. So where’s the beef?

The problem is that we are dealing with two different authorities. One is common law and the other is religious law. Article I of the Bill Of Rights states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  This portion of the first amendment affirms what it believed to be a natural right that people may believe and worship as they desire and just as important, the government shall not have an official religion. The reason for this is that at the time of the founding documents, England and other countries had official religions. In England, in order to hold certain positions in government or academia, a person had to be a member of the Church of England. In the case of the latest skirmish in regards to gay marriage, some of the religious folk have been accused of taking Church doctrine and law, and trying to create legislation based on it. I believe this is arguably true. Conversely, is it true that the gays are trying to change church doctrine? More accurately, it is seen that the gay agenda is trying to change the very moral fabric of society.

If gays were trying to change church law and doctrine, I would agree that is egregious in that using the current methods it would be an infringement of people’s religious freedoms and it would also be intolerant. Again, people have the right to believe as they wish. I am not so sure this is the case and if it is, they lost me here. On the other hand, I think they are correct in wanting equality in the eyes of the law. What religious fundamentalists seem to not realize is that in order to make a law that marriage is only between a man and a woman, I believe that the only way to do this legally, is to make homosexuality illegal. I cannot for the life of me see how this would be possible. In my opinion, gays are born that way. Just as a black person cannot change their skin color, a gay person cannot change their inborn sexuality. The rub with bible thumpers is that they believe that homosexuality is a choice. This has to be true for them because if they admitted that homosexuals were born that way it would imply, due to scripture and church doctrine, that god made a mistake. This is where I believe the conflict arises with them. God can’t make mistakes. As Obama said, that is above my pay grade. All I know or believe is that they were born the way they are, just as I was born the way I am. Was it a mistake? Ask god.

The only solution I see to this mess is a separation of church and state. The first assumption is that marriage is a religious concept. Only churches can marry and it is in the eyes of god. On the other hand, for marriages to be recognized by the state for legal purposes, there exists a legal standard in issuing of a license for that purpose. Only the state can regulate the legal aspects of a common law union. So, to this effect, the state should create or change marriage licenses to common law union licenses for everyone. This document establishes a legal relationship so as to settle estates, living wills, probate, etc. If the people who obtain a common law union license wish to have their marriage recognized in a religion, which is up to the religion to decide who may or may not be married in their church/synagogue. Through this separation, equality can exist within the natural rights of people.

“Jefferson believed that each individual has ‘certain inalienable rights.’ That is, these rights exist with or without government; man cannot create, take, or give them away. It is the right of ‘liberty’ on which Jefferson is most notable for expounding. He defines it by saying rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. It is not ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Hence, for Jefferson, though government cannot create a right to liberty, it can indeed violate it. And the limit of an individual’s rightful liberty is not what law says it is but is simply a matter of stopping short of prohibiting other individuals from having the same liberty. A proper government, for Jefferson, is one that not only prohibits individuals in society from infringing on the liberty of other individuals, but also restrains itself from diminishing individual liberty (Appleby and Ball, p224, 1999).

The previous paragraph is how I see liberty and freedom on this earth and in the universe. If we could all live by this, which is an extension of Christ’s commandments, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, we all would be better off. What prevents this, in my opinion, is that people want power. In an ideal state of liberty and freedom, no one, including the government, has more power than any other individual or entity. Human beings, due to their survival instincts, look for an advantage. Part of an advantage is to look for power over others. Be that as it may, the quest for power relegates the desire for equality to second place. I think this is something that some wish not to admit. Take this particular issue, if my solution was implemented, which I believe offers the greatest chance at justice and equality, I would bet that neither side would be satisfied because equality is not the ultimate goal of either side. It is the promulgation of their respective agendas and the power that would be gained by the hegemony thereof that may be the true goal. If this is the case, then a pox on both your houses.

The latest war on liberties demonstrates the quest for power. The Mormons and other religious groups use the government to promulgate their religious views in law. The gay community is infringing on people’s individual right to practice religion when they perpetrate acts in religious places and moreover, expose people that contribute as individuals to campaigns that promulgate religious views. In as much as the courts may strike down the referenda, a person’s individual right to practice religion and participate peacefully in a political process should not be violated by anyone. What baffles me about the rude and unlawful behavior is that in every case that I recall, the courts have struck down such referenda. My question is, why the militant behavior? Considering gays account for less than 10% of the population, it’s a literal fight that can’t be won by those means, and I would suggest it won’t end well in the end. My advice would be to use the courts to seek justice in this case, and the legislature if necessary, but above all, the rights of people on both sides of the issue must be respected if we are to have equality and justice. My favorite civil rights advocate is Frederick Douglass. While Mr. Douglass said “Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will. Show me the exact amount of wrong and injustices that are visited upon a person and I will show you the exact amount of words endured by these people.” Demand does not equal unlawful, disgusting or rude acts. While I believe there are instances where people may act in kind, or in effect to defend oneself, this is not one of them.

Thank you for reading this blog.



References

Appleby and Ball (1999) Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, April 4, 1819 from Thomas Jefferson

Written by James Lagnese

November 25, 2008 at 11:05 pm