Friday, May 23, 2014

A Post Wherein I Express My Disappointment At Being Unable To Watch A Political Train Wreck In Real Time

I want to be a real political  blogger like Heidelberger and Powers. In order to do that I need to cover a live political event. Besides, I think I might enjoy watching a slow motion train wreck.

Like the national Republican party, South Dakota's GOP has a country club/business uber alles faction, a religious conservative faction, and a libertarian faction.

Yesterday's decision by six same-sex couples to challenge South Dakota's laws and constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage brings divisions between South Dakota's religious conservatives and libertarians into sharp focus.

Ken Santema gives the libertarian perspective:
An important concept in America the right for all citizens to be treated equally under the law. Political activists from all perspectives use this concept to advocate for their beliefs. As a libertarian I believe this means that any law created must apply to all citizens equally and special ‘classes’ of people would be unconstitutional. A more authoritarian person would believe this concept means the government has to use its power to create equal outcomes for all citizens. Ironically both viewpoints should theoretically see same-sex marriage in a similar manner: reserving the right to marry to one subset of the citizenry creates a special class and is therefore unconstitutional. . . .
The legal benefits become apparent last summer when the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was found to be a violation of the US Constitution. At that time I noted that DOMA was passed, in part, to prevent people who were in a same-sex marriage or civil union from receiving federal benefits. Now those same-sex couples that are legally married by the State will be allowed access to the same federal benefits and welfare programs that other married citizens enjoy. That is the only part of the expansion of marriage I truly dislike: it will lead to an expansion of federal benefits and entitlements to more people. Yet as distasteful as I find the current entitlement policies in DC, I find it even more distasteful to outright arbitrarily classify citizens based upon the religious beliefs of some Americans. Perhaps this expansion of the entitlement state will now force social conservatives to get the government out of the business of marriage. I doubt it, but I can always hold out a little bit of hope.
Santema may be an outlier, but unless South Dakota's Republican party is an island unto itself, there's little reason to believe that a not unsubstantial number of the state's Republicans share his libertarian leanings.

The religious conservatives are royally pissed off markedly less sanguine about this legal turn of events. Bob Ellis, the angriest man in the South Dakota blogosphere, contends:
You didn't seriously think homosexual activists would be happy with their partial Supreme Court-awarded victory over marriage, did you? You didn’t think anything less than the total eradication of what is good would appease them, did you?
Homosexual activists have been threatening for some time to attack marriage in South Dakota by going to another state and counterfeiting marriage, then returning the South Dakota to attack marriage here. Now they have finally pulled the trigger on their plan. . . .
Because homosexual activists have had marriage in their crosshairs for several years, the people of the overwhelming majority of the states took the extra steps of defining and spelling out in law what human beings have instinctively understood for thousands of years (that marriage takes a man and a woman).  Allowing these vicious activists to counterfeit marriage and render meaningless the constitutions of multiple states is absolutely unconscionable and should not be entertained even for a second by rational, moral people.  This is an attack on liberty and our republican form of government, as much as it is an attack on the institution of marriage and the moral fabric of our society. Our constitution and our government belongs to “we the people,” not to narcissistic activists and tyrannical oligarchs in black robes; self-government is not their personal plaything.
Pastors and good people all across the state of South Dakota should rise up and demand that Representative Kristi Noem and Senator John Thune make it clear in public on television that we are prepared to pull the trigger on any judicial activist who would attack marriage, the will of the people, and the South Dakota Constitution, and impeached them as is our right and obligation under the U.S. Constitution. It should be made clear that the U.S. House will prefer articles of impeachment, and by the time those articles reach the Senate, it will probably be in Republican hands next year to carry out the full impeachment of said judicial activist judge.
Or shall we just slink away like impotent cowards and allow radical Leftists to make a mockery of the Republican Party, the conservative movement, democracy, the rule of law, the South Dakota Constitution, the United States Constitution, Christianity, and the very Creator who created humanity and established marriage as between a man and a woman?
Some South Dakota Republicans, Ellis chief among them, hold the party's platform at a level usually reserved for sacred not secular texts. Seeing these two factions argue about the marriage plank in the platform while watching the business faction trying to determine which position will earn them the greatest profit would have created some fun blogging opportunities. Unfortunately, I have a work commitment.  I suppose I could see if the Democrats give out credentials to bloggers. Demolition derbies are almost as fun as train wrecks.

4 comments:

Tim said...

"Or shall we just slink away like impotent cowards and allow radical Leftists to make a mockery of the Republican Party, the conservative movement, democracy, the rule of law, the South Dakota Constitution, the United States Constitution, Christianity, and the very Creator who created humanity and established marriage as between a man and a woman?"

I thought republicans were doing a pretty good job of this without anybody else's help.

Kal Lis said...

Thanks for stopping by, Tim.

I take it that you're not part of the libertarian wing of the Republican party.

Tim said...

No, very independent and getting more liberal by the day, just don't like what single party rule is doing to our great state.

Kal Lis said...

I don't know if I'm getting more liberal but I share your dislike for single party rule