nonmetal wingding: Why Can't We Stop Debating Abortion and Gay Marriage?

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney tried to return to his moderate roots earlier this week by saying he had no plans to push for legislation that would limit abortion and Republicans have lost their mother-loving minds. This prompted his spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, to come out and say that he ?is proudly pro-life and will be a pro-life president.? Unless you?re a small varmint.

This brings us to the larger problem of this election cycle. No matter how much the politicians say they want to move away from social issues, particularly gay marriage and abortion, to talk about the real issues facing this country, such as, oh I don?t know, the mounting debt, they keep popping back up like a pimple on the face of a pre-pubescent boy.

The Supreme Court should be the Proactiv of the country.

In all reality, these issues shouldn?t even BE in question.? The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on abortion in 1973 ? Roe v. Wade anyone? So I?m not even sure why dinky little wanna-be Congressmen (and women) are even talking about it. The highest court in the country has said, ?yeah, that?s a private decision between a woman and her doctor,? of which you are neither, so shut the f*ck up about it already, Paul Ryan!

Without delving too deep into a Constitutional debate, the Roe v. Wade decision was backed by the 9^th Amendment, the full text of which is:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Side note: might that include my right to be in a relationship with anyone of my choice? Considering I don?t see how who I love affects the federal or state government, or anyone else really, that should be a right reserved to me, right?

While the Ninth Amendment ? and indeed the entire Bill of Rights ? originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement. ? Justice Arthur Goldberg (1965)

This appears to mean that gays should be able to marry and women should be able to get abortions, and because of the 1st Amendment, you can voice your opinion about it all you want, but in the end, you can?t prevent them from doing so because those are their personal rights.

However, on the topic of the SCOTUS, I have a bone to pick with the bench. Aren?t the justices supposed to be Constitutional scholars who put aside their own opinions and make rulings specifically on what the founding documents of this country say as applied to the current times? So what in the hell are you doing, Justice Antonin Scalia, running your mouth off to try to sell books by saying it is ?easy? to deny citizens their rights?

The death penalty?? It?s easy.? Give me a break.? It?s easy.? Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.

?Hahaha I can?t believe I?m saying these things either!?

This is in addition to Scalia?s opinion earlier in his far-too-lengthy lifelong term on the bench, in Lawrence v. Texas, where he managed to say that the Court was wrong to ignore the majority public opinion.

You know, like they did in Brown v. Board of Education

So imbued is the Court with the law profession?s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously ?mainstream?; that in most States what the Court calls ?discrimination? against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal.

So apparently we should ALWAYS listen to the opinions of the majority of the people of the country, despite the fact that discrimination, almost by definition, happens to minority groups. Regardless of if the minority status of the group is based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or otherwise, shouldn?t these people have the same basic rights bestowed by the Constitution? Scalia thinks not. (Double meaning!)

However, let?s go with these opinions just for fun. Let?s look at the ?majority? opinions of both gay marriage and abortion: