|
i always find it gratifying when i make a post that addresses an issue only to see the next one, and probably all the subsequent posts, act like it's not there.
the question of how a basic right gets defined that go beyond the blinkered world of a group of 18th century aristo types fucked over by the fact of being born second or later who gathered in a room to make up a constitution---that question is POLITICAL.
you don't get to decide it, cyn--i don't get to---not as individuals--but it can be defined through sustained organized pressure.
there are contexts in which limitation to the level of the states is an attempt to contain change.
the consequence of your argument, cyn, is also that you would oppose the rights of gay folk to get married at the federal level because it violates some quaint understanding of local control.
will's right about one thing--if this quaint notion of local control had held in the mid 19th century, there's still be a slavery economy. if it had held in the middle 20th, there'd still be jim crow.
it's not exactly a glorious tradition you're arguing for.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|