It's nearly impossible, especially for those of us who came through the battles to make birth control the province of women, to envision the vitriolic turn in the politics of womanhood. The double standard is alive and well and becoming sufficiently powerful to effect a return to oppressive regulation that should not even be a question on political radar. How dare a woman want control over her own life?! How dare a woman think birth control should be insured just as Viagra and other such drugs are for men?!
Cynthia Beard has done an exemplary job of articulating what I feel but have been unable to write. I hope that everyone will read and consider her thoughts carefully.
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Friday, March 2, 2012
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Civil Rights Argument
US District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6735XI20100804)
The arguments about this issue will continue, and it's likely the US Supreme Court will eventually hear a case to decide which side will "win". This is an excellent case for tracking different types of arguments, and especially for noting when an individual or group argument is internally contradictory. For instance, BBJJ commented on the Reuter's article: "Anyone can marry anyone they wish who is of the opposite sex. It is the same for everyone. Absolutely no one is being discriminated against." However, the claim that "anyone can marry anyone they wish" is contradicted by the very next phrase: "who is of the opposite sex."
Inherent in that contradiction is the assumption that no same sex couple would desire to be married, which is obviously not the case. In addition, singling out one segment of society to live under special rules is antithetical to the Constitution's "equal protection under the law" position.
This is an issue embroiled in debate about civil liberty versus majority rule. When, if ever, does the majority have the right to impose its will on the minority in social situations? Very muddy waters, indeed.
The arguments about this issue will continue, and it's likely the US Supreme Court will eventually hear a case to decide which side will "win". This is an excellent case for tracking different types of arguments, and especially for noting when an individual or group argument is internally contradictory. For instance, BBJJ commented on the Reuter's article: "Anyone can marry anyone they wish who is of the opposite sex. It is the same for everyone. Absolutely no one is being discriminated against." However, the claim that "anyone can marry anyone they wish" is contradicted by the very next phrase: "who is of the opposite sex."
Inherent in that contradiction is the assumption that no same sex couple would desire to be married, which is obviously not the case. In addition, singling out one segment of society to live under special rules is antithetical to the Constitution's "equal protection under the law" position.
This is an issue embroiled in debate about civil liberty versus majority rule. When, if ever, does the majority have the right to impose its will on the minority in social situations? Very muddy waters, indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)