Marla R. Stevens

When ignorance is not bliss...

Filed By Marla R. Stevens | June 22, 2005 4:31 PM | comments

Filed in: Fundie Watch, Marriage Equality, Media

Today the House passed a flag-burning amendment. Nothing new about that. The House is designed to be responsive majoritarianly to idiots of the sort who inspired Alexander Hamilton's better cautionary tales. The Senate, however, is supposed to protect us from the excesses that such unchecked wet finger in the wind politicking can produce. But the news this time is not good on that front.

My wife's response was to quip, "Oh, good, now a paper napkin will have more rights than I do.", after which she reminded me that Canada Day is July 1.

I, instead, could not help but wonder why too many of us 'Murkins value, as Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) put it, "the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents." Commenting on an oped by Anne Applebaum in today's Washington Post, a friend of one of my Truscott cousins reminded us that our great-some-odd-grandfather, Mr. Jefferson, was right when he conditioned his anti-Hamiltonian support of raw democratic rule by the people by saying, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

If you're wondering why someone as dedicatedly single-minded about fighting for queers' rights, particularly equal access to civil marriage, as I am would think this worth the bandwidth or my time to write about it, please consider that it is the same ignorance that inspires confusion between civil and religious marriage and the role of government versus church or other nongovernmental organizations in protecting anyone's ideas -- however on or off the mark those might be -- of the sanctity of either flags or marriages.

In other words, the older I get, the more I realize that all the stuff that matters is one big game of Six Degrees of Separation, Kevin Bacon notwithstanding.

Recent Entries Filed under Fundie Watch:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

AUTHOR: srkate

DATE: 6/23/2005 03:06:11 PM

I thought the Supreme Court had already weighed in on flag desecration? Didn't they say it was a first Amendment right?I agree that these issue dots are all connected and even the seemingly petty ones, feed into the same evangelical fire.Kate Bishop

AUTHOR: Marla R. Stevens

DATE: 6/26/2005 04:21:15 PM

The Supremes have weighed in -- but on a statute. Amendments trump the Supremes and the neocons are as an amendment-happy bunch as we've seen since the first fourteen proposals became ten (which were virtually promised to the old guys from the hills surrounding Charlottesville, Virginia -- from whose ideas they were distilled -- enough that they practically don't count as not part of the original.)