Secession revisited

Some continue to point to secessionism as a solution.  (h/t TWC)

I like the idea, but have my doubts. Much has been made of red states and blue states, red counties and blue counties, etc., but in reality the “red” areas are only different shades of blue. Conservatives in these regions are more accurately described as “right liberals” who accept all the fundamental assumptions of liberal modernity, differing only in their application.

Let’s take the same-sex marriage debate in California. Our so-called conservatives are out there saying that they support homosexual rights, domestic partnerships, civil unions, and all the rest of it, but please please please just don’t redefine the little word “marriage”. For those of you inclined to think this is only a California phenomenon, similar examples are easy to find in flyover country.

3 thoughts on “Secession revisited

  1. I will say this for Michigan: When we amended our state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, we included one little phrase “or similar union.” In other words, legally recognized civil unions are also unconstitutional in Michigan. But I still shake my head over the following recollection: A few years ago I went to a Federalist Society meeting in Ann Arbor. I’m not a member, but a friend got me tickets, because that way I got to meet Antonin Scalia, who was the speaker. I ended up sitting next to a rather unpleasant-looking lawyer who, apropos of something or other, began saying that the “or similar union” phrase shouldn’t have been put into the amendment. At this moment, I can’t remember if it hadn’t passed yet and he was arguing that it wouldn’t pass because of this. But I think not. I think it had passed, and he just didn’t like it. He was fretting over the possibility that private companies wouldn’t be allowed (heaven forbid) to grant domestic partner benefits to their homosexual employees. Now, this is enormously implausible, because it was quite clear both from the history of the proposal and from its wording that the question was one of _legal_ recognition, hence, formal recognition by the government, and that private firms would remain free to do whatever they pleased about denoting people as dependents of their employees. The only question even in the zone is whether state universities and other state organizations can grant domestic partner benefits. I think this is still unresolved, but I really don’t care. Why should we be shedding tears if Michiganders amended their state constitution so that state universities can’t grant unmarried people domestic partner benefits for their sexual partners of whatever sex? Big deal. But that whole set of questions bothered this guy sitting next to me at the dinner. I guess he would definitely count as a “right liberal.”


  2. A friend of mine remarked today that if there were talks of succession, and if there were talk of another civil war in which the government attempted to intervene, it would not be like the previous American civil war; it would be more like the Spanish Civil War. Our country cannot be so easily divided into “red state/blue state” as it may seem on election day, and as you know in California. There are wars and conflicts within states themselves. Between cities/urban centers and towns. In short, it would be bloody, particularly for the Church.


  3. Today is October 17, 2010, so I’m probably the only one who will be posting here until the end of the world, which may happen soon. If the Republicans sweep the November 2010 midterm elections, THEN the blue states should secede! We should’ve done it back in 2004, when it was the right idea at the right time. This time may be our last chance to save ourselves from total economic ruin. Let the red states go their own way. There is no point in fighting them for control of an entire nation when the nation is so divided between predominantly liberal and predominantly conservative regions. Neither side wants to meet halfway, so let’s call it quits while it’s still the most rational choice. Then the northern states and Canada can go back to requiring nothing more than a photo ID to get to and from Canada. I miss those days!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s