The last page or two is kinda off topic but here goes.
Originally Posted By: whomod (emphasis added)
As for abortion, I'm personally against it for personal reasons but as Barry Goldwater also elaborated on, it's a matter of personal choice, not intended for government intervention. If it's a moral issue, then it's up to that person to square themselves with God, not for me to legislate their salvation or obedience...
teehee! redundancy!
But seriously, I somewhat agree with you. Though you do realize that "not for me to legislate" goes two ways, right? I consider both abortion and gay rights to be issues for which there IS no legislative solution. Ideally, the federal government shouldn't be touching these either way. What some call "affirming existing rights" I see as so much more government interference and political football. Because whether you're saying "yeah, do this" or "no, don't do this" it's the same thing - the government is enforcing SOME kind of morality. If anything, it should be up to the states to decide those sorts of things, because it stands to reason that the more local the government is, the closer in contact it will be with its constituents and thus the more attuned it will be with the will of the people - and there are as many wills as there are people! Trying to homogenize (pun sort of kind of not intended) how the entire country sees a moral issue just plain doesn't work with as many differing opinions as we have. Ultimately, if the federal government isn't violating the establishment clause, they're violating the free exercise clause. Catch-22.
