Mark's Musings

I don’t think hating someone for their race, color, gender, sexual orientation is anything BUT a mental health issue, at least originally. Of course, if a child is brought up in a racist/sexist/bigoted house-hold, it’s a different story, but at some point if one doesn’t challenge one’s prejudices, well…

Very provocative, but it’s not as clear cut as you make it seem. Consider other examples. In the Catholic religion, women cannot be ordained priests. Should we then label Catholics as mentally ill? Many Republicans favor capital punishment. Can we call them crazy for such a position? One might feel that it’s insane for an undocumented immigrant to risk life and limb to cross a desert just to get a dollar-an-hour job. Are those who advocate amnesty equally nuts? It’s a pretty slippery slope to dismiss those with different opinions as somehow defective.

Anyway, Card’s main point seemed to be that unelected judges were unconstitutionally enacting legislation instead of leaving that task to the people and their legislatures. This contrasts sharply with other civil rights struggles in our history, such as women’s suffrage. The 19th amendment was voted in; it was not imposed. Even if I support gay marriage, I can’t help but be given pause by the means by which it’s coming about.

People of conscience can look each other in the eye and say, “I disagree with you.” A core principle of our form of government is that such exchanges allow the best ideas to prevail. Ad hominem attacks often imply that the attackers are afraid that their own ideas can’t withstand scrutiny. So lets all write and vote and speak, but do so with the confidence that the arguments (and not the distracting labeling) will carry the day.