Wednesday, February 22, 2012

"Activist" Judges

We've been hearing a lot about "activist judges" in the past few years, and the term grates on my nerves every single time I hear it.  To me, an "activist judge" is a judge who makes a decision you personally disagree with.  Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that there aren't judges out there who have less than stellar motives.  We recently had a judge running for office in my area who wanted to implement a Christian world view via the judiciary, and he wasn't even shy about openly telling people this (which is hopefully why he wasn't elected).

But I'm seriously starting to wonder if people even realize what the judicial system is there for.  Since they don't teach much civics in school anymore, it's really no surprise that people are uneducated about what judges are supposed to do, which really leaves our country in a sad state of affairs.

So, if you're one of the confused multitudes, I'll break it down for you.  Judges are essentially there to interpret the law and pass judgement within the scope of our Constitution and set of laws.  But one very overlooked job of a judge is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  Despite what some may think, we do not live in a country where the majority rules.  We live in a democracy where we are given certain fundamental rights by our Constitution.  So yes, on many issues, including who we elect to office, the majority rules.  But on other issues, such as civil rights, it's up to judges to make sure that people's rights are protected, even if those rights are not popular at the time.

For example, gay people should be afforded the same rights as the rest of us under our Constitution.  However, these days that seems to be an unpopular point of view, especially among the Christian majority in this country.  So what it supposed to happen is that the judiciary protects the rights of an unpopular minority against the will of the majority who may not want rights afforded to a certain group of people.  Unfortunately, even our legislators seem to have lost sight of that fact and are putting people's fundamental rights up to a popular vote.

Can you imagine what would have happened if we had allowed people to vote on the civil rights of African-Americans, especially in the Deep South?  We'd probably still have segregation laws to this day.  Black people deserve to have all the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen of the U.S., simply because they are human and they live here, no matter how unpopular or small in number they may be.  It doesn't matter what the white majority says, because it's not up to them to give or take away rights; it's up to the Constitution and the judiciary which protects the rights given by the Constitution.

Why can't people take this same logic and apply it to the issue of gay marriage?  It doesn't matter whether you are for or against it.  That's not the point.  The point is that it's not up to you or me to give or take away people's rights.  So the next time you hear about someone railing on about an "activist judge," consider that maybe the reason that judge is hated is that they were just doing their job properly.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Ultrasound Politics

I just caught the tail end of an NPR show discussing the new Virginia ultrasound law that requires women seeking abortions to have a vaginal ultrasound to help them better understand the decision they so flippantly made about terminating their pregnancy.

I've been hearing about this issue a lot lately, but finally feel the need to put my 2 cents in. 

First of all, I've had a vaginal ultrasound, and let me tell you, it ain't fun.  I had to get one during my last pregnancy, and as a person with sexual assault in my background, it made me very queasy.  Not to be indelicate, but we're talking about a rather large probe here.  I did it without (too much) complaint, because I was having a very wanted and planned for pregnancy, and my doctor assured me it was in my best interest.  But I can't imagine being pushed into this procedure for absolutely NO medical reason, especially if I had been seeking an abortion because I was raped.  Let me repeat that: having a pre-abortion vaginal ultrasound serves absolutely NO medical purpose.  The purpose is clearly to get the best image possible of the embryo in the hopes that the woman seeking the abortion will change her mind.  After all, you know how emotional and wishy-washy we women are about making personal decisions.

The woman in the NPR discussion had written an article about the new law that described the ultrasound as a form of rape, since the law does not allow for the woman to give her consent to be vaginally probed; she either does it, or she doesn't get the abortion.  The author of the piece was roundly chastised for this point of view, but I think she made a good point.  Doesn't the government forcing you to be vaginally probed fall somewhere along the lines of sexual assault?

This law is nothing more than yet another attempt to slut-shame women who had the audacity to have sex with someone in an instance where bearing a child was not the ultimate goal.  It is also an attempt to continue pushing the lie that women who have abortions do so casually, and without really knowing what they're doing, which of course implies that women just aren't all that smart to begin with.  And you know what, if women keep voting for the people (mainly men) who are passing these ridiculous laws, then maybe we're not so smart, are we?

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Dear God No

Really? Rick Santorum?  That's who you're going for Minnesota?  Rick Santorum?  Do you know anything about Rick Santorum?  Not that I approve of any of the GOP candidates, but Rick Santorum is just a whole 'nother breed of crazy. 

Yes, Rick Santorum won the Minnesota GOP caucus vote last night, and I'm still in a little bit of shock.  I mean, I suppose if you're an evangelical Christian who believes that we should be living in a Christian theocracy where we're all required to abstain from sex until marriage, carry unwanted pregnancies, live in loveless, sham marriages if we're gay, and give money to the official Christian church of America, then Santorum is probably the way to go.  But if you value personal freedom at all, what would possess you to support this guy?

I certainly don't think the Democrats, or Obama specifically, have all the answers, but they certainly have better answers than Rick Santorum.  This guy is so obsessed with gay people, that I find it hard to believe he's not gay himself.  Anyone who spends that much time thinking about homosexuality is doing so for a reason.  If he ever wants to get over his Google problem, he should probably just shut up on the issue and move on to something else.

I think that the average Santorum voter is hoping that he can somehow bring us back to the Utopian days of the 40's and 50's where everyone waited to have sex until they got married, no one had abortions, and gay people were non-existent.  In other words "family values."  But here's the thing about the 40's and 50's; that Utopian version of the decades never existed in the first place.  People were just much, much better about hiding their secrets.  There were a lot more premature babies born to couples who had only been married 7 months, a lot more women dying of mysterious hemorrhaging, and a lot more crazy uncles living with their "roommate." 

My husband and I were discussing this the other night in the context of these kinds of old secrets within our own extended families. A lot of crazy shit happened to our ancestors, but they were much better about covering it up and living a lie.  Isn't it better to just live in the open and be honest about who you are and what's going on in your life?

I think so, but I'm pretty sure Rick Santorum doesn't.