There. Did that subject line get your attention?
Item the First. The LA Times has an article about how Prop 8 backers are changing their tactics. They are now attempting to argue that Prop 8 should be upheld because it was the will of the people, while still others are arguing it should be upheld because it is God’s law. While this is perhaps more sensical than the “it will destroy marriage” argument, it is also an equally invalid argument in America.
Looking at the first claim: It was the will of the people trumps the constitution. Wrong. If you look at the nature of our government, it is explicitly designed to protect the rights of the few from the tyranny of the many. That’s why we have two houses of congress: so the more populous states can’t outshout the little states. More significantly, that’s why we have the courts and the Bill of Rights. Consider: In the 1850s, it was the will of the people in many states that blacks could not marry whites. Did that majority view make it right? It was the majority view in the 1940s that “separate but equal” educational facilities were acceptable. Did that make it right?
Now, let’s look at the second claim, best characterized by Russell Wade, 72: “I’m a Christian and marriage is, like the Bible says, a union of a man and a woman,” he said. “I’ll stick with what the Lord says. No matter what any court says, I have to live by a higher law.” It is Mr. Wade’s right to live by what he views as a higher law. However, it cannot be legislated, for to institute the law of a particular God just because it is the law of that God is, in effect, an instance of the state giving priority of one religion over another religion. That’s establishment of a state religion, and goes against the constitution. Even if the majority wills it, because the majority is of the same religious bent, it can’t use the “God’s Law” argument to trump the constitution.
It boils down to this: the 14th amendment requires that “No State shall […] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I haven’t yet heard a compelling argument why gays should be excluded from the set that get equal protection of the laws.
Item The Second. Another article in the LA Times discusses how topless beaches are going out of favor in Europe. There appear to be a variety of reasons, but the current attitude of youth is summed up by the words of Coralie Kosiada, 23: “There are not that many nice-looking breasts, so why display them?”. Perhaps, but I know most men would likely dispute that (and quite likely a fair number of women as well). The real reason appears more to be the change in attitude regarding tans: Tan breasts used to be pretty, and now they are not, especially on an older body. So, with respect to this subject, what do you think? Are topless beaches a relic of the 20th century?
