Rebuttal to Scarantino's Post "Fascism for New Mexico"

Mr. Scarantino commented on my original post about his column on the domestic partnership bill by posting a rebuttal, called "Fascism for New Mexico," on his libertarian forum. Cute title, no? Here are my return arguments to him. I post them here because I don't want to join his forum to express them there:

There is no call to censorship. There is a call for people to express their opinions to those who provide you with a platform about whether they believe your particular brand of dishonest analysis and hypocritical posing is adding something useful to the dialogue. Despite your protestations that your biases are backed by intellectual theories in ye olde tomes, and are thus harmless or at least justified, people get the gist of where you’re coming from using simple common sense.

Many of those who support the continuation of the unjust and unequal provision of civil rights left over from less educated eras cloak their prejudices in the guise of protecting some notion of Western civilization or its ideals -- just as you use your interpretation of Hayek. It’s an old trick and one easily perceived as such.

Rep. Stewart’s bill is not about same-sex couples, as you state. It is about allowing couples whether straight or gay to gain basic civil rights under civil law.

Using your odd method of analysis, I guess you could say that ANY civil rights or responsibilities granted to ANYONE necessarily impinge on the liberties of others. Just think what freedoms the prohibitions against falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded movie house take from those who love to scare people with false alarms.

What if I had what I defined as a “religious belief” that it was sinful for Italian men of a certain age to vote in presidential elections? Should my “religious belief” take precedence over the rights granted by the constitution and established law to all citizens because it would be considered a "sin" by me? If I were an election worker, should I be able to use this religious belief of mine to refuse to process you at a polling place or stop you from voting altogether?

There are rights claimed to be granted to all in our democracy that have specifically been shielded from the potentially limiting effects of religion. Yet you would have religious beliefs trumping those rights, which ideally should be granted equally and fairly to each and every citizen. Even though I am gay, the constitution tells me my rights should be equal to those of other citizens in every way, not dependent on whatever wacky religious belief becomes fashionable in any given era. You know that. You’re just pretending not to know it because you are appealing to and feeding the socially conservative beliefs of your fans in the so-called libertarian movement.

If someone is offering non-religious services in the public square, as pharmacists and health care technicians do, they cannot be allowed to interfere with the rights of citizens due to the precedence of whatever kooky religious beliefs they may have. Should we allow Christian Scientists who might work as doctors to refuse to order or perform medical procedures, like blood transfusions, with which they don’t agree on a religious basis? Where does it end?

If, as once was, a religion banned its adherents from eating meat on Fridays, should the serving of all meat and all meat consumption be prohibited in the larger culture on that day so that those whose religious beliefs preclude them from eating meat that day are accommodated? In that case, can you imagine going to a McDonald’s on a Friday and being told by the clerk working the drive-up window that he or she cannot serve you because of their religious beliefs?

Absurd, isn’t it? So is your argument, except within the cocoons of theoretical spin where real life becomes a mere abstraction -- because what you are talking about will never affect you and others who agree with you.

If we went by your suggestions, every bill would have to spell out every single instance where it did NOT apply, instead of clearly stating when it will apply and to what it will apply as Rep. Stewart’s bill surely does. As she stated, the ONLY penalty enacted would be for fraudulent claims of domestic partnership. The other dire impacts of the bill you mention exist only in your head, not in the bill.

Finally, the “freedom of expression” you whine would be taken from you if people express their opinions about you on my blog or to the media outlets that provide you a platform is just another example of crying wolf on your part. You are free to say whatever you want, but anyone who cares to do so certainly has the right to express their displeasure with what you say and/or where you are given an opportunity to say it. That’s part of the bargain when you’re featured in newspapers or on TV shows. Viewers and readers are allowed to express their opinions, good or bad. Again, you know that, but you create a false argument to distract people from the real points of the debate and impress those who agree with you. A little weak, isn’t it?