Posted by
Scaramouche on Friday, November 09, 2007 2:18:14 PM
All history is a record of the power of minorities, and of minorities of one.
Author: Ralph Waldo Emerson
More that a hundred comments attended the article I read today about pending legislation (having Passed in the House of Representatives) to "protect" the rights of homosexuals in the workplace. The ACT, H.R. 3685, referred to as "ENDA", for Employment Non-Discrimination Act, covers hiring, harassment, firing, and any additional behavior which might be considered to "victimize" or injure the designated party. Other that a few provocateurs attempting to inflame or distort the conversation with emotion, NOT ONE brought out what grasped me at the end. This is ultimately about the minority, not the sexual orientation of a particular percentage of the population. Several minorities were mentioned; race, disability, ethnicity, religion age, gender, and of course orientation of varying degree. Let old Scaramouche tell you; if you can achieve that coveted designation, your opportunity for redress against offense, real or imagined, is enhanced.That the legislation portends for our system of government, from the altruism (or more precisely, pandering) of the congress, to the courts, and right down the ladder to the enforcers, to afford protection of an intended group elicits a question...or two. At what size does a minority become entitled to "special" laws that govern their treatment as separated from the general laws and the general population? Where is the threshold of grievance upon which the "special" law becomes necessary? Certainly the weakling on the playground, when he (or she) cries that "he beat me up* please refer to previous caveat for feminists) deserves the full force and protection of "the law". Now think for a few moments. How many identifiable minorities can you envision...in just a brief few moments? How should the term minority be applied? Must it be limited to a national scale, a percentage of total population? Are there regional minorities deserving of less that their more numeric cousins under "the law"? Do some minorities exist only within as confined a geography as a community who would be excluded from recognition? Specifically, are there individuals who, in the majority nationally, find themselves and their peers as minority in a state or municipality? Are there any minorities NOT deserving special adjudication due to their nature? What of potential conflict between existing law and exigencies of the future? Our society has stretched so far as to determine that civility dictates the intent of an act be judged, and in the implied intent of hate, that it be judged more harshly and with greater punishment that that of a "benignly intentioned" criminal act. There's murder (degrees 1st, 2nd, and 3rd), and then there's HATE murder, much more heinous than the other. Should you incite another, or a group, you could share the guilt, or your guilt could far surpass the actual transgressors. What other thoughts or emotions shall we, as a civilized people, discern to be of sufficient grievance that a court or a judge will be given authority to divine their presence and liability to an attendant crime and for how long will we continue representatives of specific minorities to solicit a specified severity for the very presence of the thought or emotion?
To a mule's mind, this is all wrong. If someone threatens, or attacks you; defend yourself. If you cannot, seek help. If someone offends you, do not count it as an injury, most especially one deserving of recompense. Go about your business. If you molested another, you are no less guilty than a molester with unspeakable lust within their heart. If you murder with hatred, you are not more guilty than someone who murders without a discriminate reason. Until the matter is subject to more common sense and clarity, to paraphrase the Godfather, keep your lawyer close, and your lawmaker closer. Can a mule get a little protection over here? I think some of these readers are antimuleites.