The Link Between Abortion and Gay Marriage
Written by John Rozewicki   
Friday, 31 March 2006
The civil rights movement was a landmark time for the United States. It pushed the country forward in a way that hasn't happened since. It was a volatile time, and since then the country has cooled off. On one hand this is a good thing as the cooling off leads to less violence, but maybe we've cooled off too much. Complacency has set in now, and we're essentially frozen.

Frozen Food for Thought

The big questions now are the same big questions that plagued our society in the 70's. Should people be allowed to smoke marijuana? Should people have the right to abort unwanted children? We've gone nowhere since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Evidence that we've gone nowhere is that now, 33 years after Roe v. Wade hit the US Supreme Court, we're ramping up for another abortion battle in that same court. Roe v. Wade was supposed to settle the argument, but it didn't. We weren't done arguing, and we've been preoccupied about it ever since. Things are stacking up. New questions such as gay marriage have come up, but we have no capacity to deal with them. If we've not been able to deal with the questions of marijuana and abortion, how are we to be expected to deal with gay marriage in a timely fashion? Is that going to take another 30 years to hit a court somewhere, and then another 30 to be argued over one more time? How many other questions will be raised, and how backlogged will our Supreme Court get?

Thawing Out the Decision-Making Process

It is not that these issues can't be resolved. They just can't be resolved at a national level. There's too many people in this country to make everyone happy all the time. The founders of our country built structures to handle situations like this; states. The reason we live in states, is because there are going to be issues that we won't be able to agree upon nationally. Those issues, should be resolved at the state level. This makes the largest number of people happy, because it doesn't have to fit the whole country. People in different places are able to make different decisions. Our government has not drastically changed in the last 150 years, but it seems we've forgotten about a few of the basic ideas the United States was built on. States still have rights, but in 2006 they behave like they don't. These rights are there to be exercised. The states that do exercise them are looked at as rebels, or like they're somehow breaking the status quo. California is a good example. They do what they like over on the west coast, and the rest of the country talks about how nutty they are. Whether you agree with the decisions being made, at least they're doing something to make their little piece of the country better according to what people who live in that state seem to want. Not all states are the same. Most people know this, but they don't really grasp that things could be more different if they had to be. In Michigan, it's okay to make a left on a red. In other states, it's not okay to make a right on red. Do we need to take traffic laws to the Supreme Court? Things are different between states, and we accept it. We move along. Murder, one of the most egregious attacks on an individual's rights, has different penalties depending on the state you're in. The minimum age to marry is different between states. Things can be different, and should be different. We don't need to decide everything at a national level, and then impose that decision on everyone.

Different Strokes fo' Different Folks

This is the link between abortion, and gay marriage. They are state's rights issues. I don't care where you come down on the issues of abortion or gay marriage. It doesn't matter. They do not affect this country as a whole. Our country was designed so that there be freedom of choice and diversity. States can do what they like. It isn't inconceivable that we might not be able to reach a decision, as a country, on these issues. We don't have to. So let's stop arguing about it, and throwing it in the president's lap. It is not his job. We've lost our sense of independence, and look to the federal government to tell us what to do. Nationalism is powerful, but it isn't the answer to everything. People don't seem to understand the levels between them and what they hear on the news. They understand the homeowner's association in their community. They understand what George Bush is doing as the president. They do not understand how the state they live in affects their life. They don't understand they have choice, or they should have choice.

Using the Right Tool for the Job

Our system is not a bad system, but the way it's being used is kind of ridiculous. Historically there were less people in this country, and yet the structures in place were used to benefit everyone. It's easier to make everyone happy when everyone encompasses a smaller number of people. States used their rights, and understood that not every decision to be made had to affect the whole country. They probably could have argued something out for the whole country, but they didn't. They used the tools available to them to make everything smoother and easier. Today, we have many times more people spread across a far greater geographical area. Yet we ignore the structures that have been in place since the inception of our government. We argue non-stop, and attempt to find a solution that fits everyone. I suspect that if research is done into decision making among large groups of people we'll find that when a group reaches a certain size it becomes unlikely that any solution can be found at all. We're probably past this point in the United States. Let's realize this, and move forward by dealing with things on a state by state basis.

Stop Arguing; Start Thinking

Does it really matter if certain states allow gays to marry, and other states don't? Do we really need the same abortion laws in every state? It would be very convenient, but having a national Bureau of Motor Vehicles would be pretty convenient too. It might be a little tougher if we have different things in different states, but I think everyone would be happier. They might actually learn something about the state they live in, and be able to do the things they want to do. Let's just bypass all this national uproar about these issues. We can undercut the federal government, and that's what has happened in most states already with abortion. We can do the same thing with gay marriage. In states where civil union laws can be passed, we'll pass them. In states where they can't be passed, that's okay too. The state will reflect the wants and needs of its citizens. Once again, this is a case where people are putting the cart before the horse with regards to arguing. None of this needs to go to the federal supreme court, at all. So any national arguments that can be had are pretty worthless no matter which side you take.
Trackback(0)
Comments (0)add comment

Write comment
password
 

busy
 
< Prev