Repeal and Replace

brown and gray rifles lined up
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Too often the power of the US Constitution has not come from what it actually says but rather from the underlying perspectives and assumptions that were made by its 18th Century authors:

  • White men are superior to all other beings.
  • Women are invisible and subject to the whim of (free white) men.
  • Blacks are not fully human.
  • Indians are savage and only marginally redeemable.
  • Human sexuality is Biblical before it is biological.
  • Poverty is a failure of human will.

Assumptions like this come from the perspectives of “founding fathers” who wished to enshrine in government their priorities and goals based on their specific world view.  Any investigation of the United States Constitution offers a great deal to question and interrogate.  Part of that interrogation must also acknowledge that the Constitution is not entirely hopeless.  In it, we have an instrument of government that has a built-in capacity for the “do-over.”  We have the tools to fix things and do things right. 13th & 14th Amendments, 19th Amendment, 21st Amendment, etc.  It is essential that we now take advantage of this feature and move to repeal and replace…the 2nd Amendment.

We are currently living in a world where it takes only 30 seconds to kill 8 people.  When the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791, a standard rifle such as the Brown Bess could only fire six rounds in a minute when fired by a professional.  The first standing army was established that same year (to quell Indian revolts) and only white men could legally possess arms.  The 2nd Amendment secured access to the lethal power of guns in the 18th Century as a “right” for a specific purpose, time and a limited population.  But today it has become the foundation for extreme ideology that is toxic and publicly lethal on a mass scale.

With the incredible advances in weaponry both for hunting and for warfare, any rational being can recognize the necessity to revisit the laws governing the ability to carry and use deadly force. Outside of the contentious question about whether there should be deadly force in the hands of civilians in the first place, what if we were able to have an amendment that used language such as this:

All people within the United States, have the right to personal defense by means of reasonable force so as to limit the threat to personal injury.  Equal are the rights of all persons to exist without the threat of lethal force to their personal death or injury, either by accident, exposure to circumstances or perceived threat to others.

A modern 2nd Amendment will recognize that weaponry for hunting and survival (though I may personally disagree with it) is a way of sustainable life for many people in this nation.  It will also acknowledge the right one has to defend themselves if they are properly trained and vetted to respond to threat.  But it will also recognize that easy access to military grade weapons has created a national health and public safety crisis that is fueled by ideological perversions that leave all of us unsafe.

Legislators and language in our government that defend death by suicide, mass shootings, domestic violence and race hatred creates an environment where these tragedies are not just tolerated but expected.  This is counter to everything the US Constitution stands for.  We must rethink the 2nd Amendment…repeal and replace.  We deserve to be much more than the land of the feared and the home of the dead.

A Good Guy With a Penis…

Now that, thanks to Alabama, we are on the road BACK to the Supreme Court to legislate women’s bodies, their rights and their legitimacy, I’m wondering where the good guy with a penis comes in? “Gun rights” (a total oxymoron) activists think that somehow more people with guns will stop the bad actors with guns in emergencies, when it has clearly been proven that more guns simply mean more gun deaths[1].  So, by this kind of logic doesn’t it stand to reason that if women can’t be trusted to have responsibility for their bodies that there would be more onus on men to NOT impregnate them?

Apparently, men have nothing to do with pregnancy except being able to tell a woman what she must do with it.  Men are not mentioned ONCE in HB 314, even though German death camps (yes, the bill can’t seem to stomach to name Nazis or The Holocaust) and Chinese and Rwandan genocide are mentioned[2].  The bill does manage to invoke the founding fathers by reminding us that “In the United States Declaration of Independence, the principle of natural law that “all men are created equal” was articulated” in the same breath that the bill mentions “the American civil rights movement” (yes, you read that correctly…small “c”), the “anti-slavery movement” and the Nuremberg war crimes trials (?!?!?!). Never mind that the phrase “all men” as written by Jefferson and accepted by his narrow demographic peers quite intentionally did not include non-white humans of any kind, indentured people and most certainly not people with a vulva.

There are 140 seats in the Alabama state legislature.  Of those seats, only 22 are held by women (15.7%) and of those 22 there are only 7 Republicans[3] of which Rep. Terri Collins who introduced the bill is one.  Still HB 314 passed with only one Democratic “yea” vote. Men did this.  Men commit marital rape.  Men force women to get abortions.  Men force women to raise children alone.  Men did this.

In a country that has never properly acknowledged how it was built on the rape of non-white women to produce more white wealth, the direction of HB 314 does not bode well.  History tells us that men won’t hold each other accountable for the way women are abused, whether that be in a domestic violence situation or in this situation with the right to manage pregnancy.  We watched it with the Kavanaugh trial with the Stanford rape case and countless other campus rapes, and we see it now.  There is no good guy with a penis.  Men in the United States are culturally biased to regard women as possessions that are subject to their will and to ignore their agency…sometimes in settings where “boys will be boys” and sometimes quite publicly, as they are now.

These state laws restricting and eliminating a woman’s divine right to manage her body and its ability and responsibilities with regard to conception cannot stand.  For a religious leader like me they are a total denial of the Unitarian Universalist Principles and they should be fought as an affront to religious liberty.  Roe v. Wade must be preserved and permanently protected.  What is more, there need to be much more explicit laws and activism concerning men’s role in the creation of life.  If men are so concerned about the sanctity of life, where are the Anti-Impregnation movements?  Where are the legal restrictions on men and ejaculation?  Why aren’t we legislating Viagra and erections?  Because men operate under the grossly misconceived assumption that every guy with a penis is good.  Frankly, we’d be safer if they all had guns.

If you’re wondering what kind of dismal prospects exist for those who may be at risk of carrying a pregnancy to term after an incestuous rape, have a look at Alabama’s age of consent laws which are entirely binary gendered and refer to non-vaginal sex as “deviate” (HERE)

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

[2] https://legiscan.com/AL/text/HB314/id/1980843/Alabama-2019-HB314-Introduced.pdf

[3] http://www.ncsl.org/legislators-staff/legislators/womens-legislative-network/women-in-state-legislatures-for-2019.aspx