exactly. the more you study history, the more you understand the present. it's not about freedom at all. it's about FORCED collectivism. obviously (hillary has moderated since then. she's not stpid), hillary played right into that ANTI-choice movement old skool feminism was NOT about increasing choice for women. it was about DRAGGING women into what THEY perceived as best for women it was ultimately totalitarian, collectivist, and demeaning towards women. and it replaced one (perceived) lack of choice, with a REAL lack of choice there are also examples of feminists of this era (and later) claiming that conservative women were not even REAL women very similar ot how radicals claim that conservative blacks (justice thomas, thomas sowell) etc. are not authentically black PJ Orourke et al have shown that many of the men who attended the ban the bra rallies etc. did so purely for one reason - the women were "loose" and as long as you :"talked the talk", the love was easy. similar statements made by many in the movement ACLU sues for gays' benefits 1919the issue is that men are naturally more promiscuous than women women "civilize" men and act as a sort of loveual gatekeeper it's not surprising that gay men have high levels of promiscuity... it's interesting to study the history of the gay rights movement. at its inception (and even among some holdouts today), the claims were that gays did NOT want to buy into the mainstream "breeder" culture, such that marriage was an abomination, and promiscuity was a revolutionary act. the basic claim was that why would gays want to buy into that breeder insbreastution. regardless, *if* gay marriage is a const. right, then it must be protected. that says nothing about whether it's a good policy decision fundamental to consbreastutional analysis is the tacit admission that not all that is consbreastutional or consbreastutionally required is "good", nor is all that is unconsbreastutional "bad" excellent laws, as a matter of policy, may very well be unconsbreastutional (and thus, verboten), just as terrible laws may in fact be consbreastutional the judicial activist attempts to twist the const. to insert personal beliefs about good-bad LAW such that prohibition of bad law can be justified, or upholding of good law can be const. justified. whit
|
