I recently had a somewhat strange conversation.

Ostensibly, it was about the 1st amendment and the concept of Separation of church and state (which, although not stated in the amendment, is derived therefrom).  After a while, though, I realized that this person was somehow arguing for a separation between state and morality, which is a whole different kettle of fish.  It’s also absurd.

Here’s how I think things should work:  The people (or their representatives) vote.  They establish laws within the framework of the Constitution.  These laws are then applied equally to all people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.  If they screw up and make a law that’s outside the framework of the Constitution, it gets struck down by the courts.

Here’s three examples:

The people (or their representatives) decide that two-person marriage is good, and should be supported through tax breaks, credits, whatever.  Now, they can’t apply this pairing to specific genders, races, etc., so if marriage is legal, gay marriage is legal. End of issue.

The people vote.  They say that the age of “adulthood” is 18 or 21 or whatever.  All laws for adults must now apply to all people of that age.  I mean, this whole “Have fun fighting in Iraq, but don’t have a beer, kid!” thing is kind of absurd.

The people vote.  They say “Life begins at viability.”  Or a heartbeat.  Or brainwaves. All laws protecting human life must now apply to all living people. This makes abortion illegal unless there’s a threat to the mother’s life, in which case, honestly, I have no idea.

Uh oh.  I just outlawed abortion.  Now what?

See, gay marriage is a no-brainer.  Hell, it’s an ANTI-brainer. If you don’t support it, then you’re not applying the law equally, and you are wrong.  It’s really the easiest issue there is, and one of the few about which I am completely dismissive of arguments “against.”

Personally, I don’t want to legalize drinking for 18 year olds.  So I’d reinstate the draft and have it start at 21.  (Yeah, I just combined two issues. Sue me.)  Put it to a vote, I say:  should there be a draft or not?  At what age?

Abortion. Oh, lord. This is where I become a hypocrite.  I believe that abortion should be a choice.  I really do.  At the same time, I think it’s painful and sad and much worse. The thing is, though, the playing field isn’t even.  Take my church, for instance.  The Roman Catholic Church  is, obviously, completely pro-life.  But they’re also anti-birth control.  We’re not talking RU-486/Plan B here… the Roman Catholic Church is dead set against pre-conception birth control (except for abstinence).

Oh, there’s workarounds.  The Catholic Church teaches all about fertility tracking, which, wink-wink, is a birth control method too, but it’s not birth control to prevent birth, right?  Wink.

The question for me is:  do I want to put this to a vote?  Let the people decide where “protected life” begins?

Roe v. Wade, which is based on a Right to Privacy derived from the Fourteenth Amendments,  would clearly be superceded by a legal declaration of citizenship for the unborn.

I’ve now written myself into a corner.  It’s like I’m the most pro-life pro-choice person ever.  Conflict, conflict.

I can’t end this with a solution.  Not everything is black and white. I’m pro-choice with a guilty conscience.

Love to all. Even you, Justice Blackmun.

Youngest: The first day of CCD was awesome.
Me: Cool! What did you learn about?
Youngest: God.

Love to all. Even you, the Type A making fun of all the other Type As.