This is a quickie for those of you who find Europe intriguing. I don't want to be accused of being Euro-centric, but come on: these people are sort of fascinating and non-threatening (violence-wise) at the same time. That's certainly rare enough. Anyway, the EU had another draft of its constitution up for vote this year. Of the 27 member countries, only one threw the Constitution into a referendum style vote: Ireland.

And now 45% of the 3 million voters of Ireland are rejecting the Constitution. For starters, the people bitching about that being a sizable minority are right but should also shut up. Protesters of the Constitution from all 27 countries have been gathering in Ireland to make themselves heard on this. Ireland was just the only country who decided that the people should have a say on this. I understand that EU has been trying for a Constitution for years, but this one... I don't like it. It takes away the autonomy of the member nations. These are, after all, independent countries with independent peoples. These aren't states like in the US. Each of these is a COUNTRY. Reading over the cliff notes version of the treaty, they won't really be able to call themselves more then member states if this passes. I guess you can argue that if they subject themselves to it it's enough, but do they understand how much they're giving up for the sake of convenience? Clearly some people do: in addition to Ireland's very loud objection, the UK and the Czech Republic have legal objections that they want addressed before voting. And the UK and Ireland have the mother of all loopholes: they can opt in or out on any number of domestic legislative items. But the other nations can't.

Once again, my sourcing is limited to the BBC because they popped up on my news feed and I'm leaving for the airport in an hour to go to a classmate's wedding in lovely VA.

So this started as a pity party, but now I'm getting riled about California. Would the liberals of California SHUT UP about you can't overturn the CA Supreme Court. They just invalidated the HEART OF DEMOCRACY AND REPUBLIC. I personally find that devistating, for me, my may some day exist children, for the future of this country. No one EVER thinks of precedent, of the two way street, of the fact that saying that the voters are wrong objectively is BAD.

For those who don't know, my thesis touched ever-so-briefly on the issue of the American judicial system, which may seem weird in light of the fact that it was about England and Arthur and myth, but trust me, the connection is there and the lack of it in practice is what's hurting us. Many argue this is about equal protection under the law, that the activism of the Courts is simply to ensure what is right. However, if this is right, then it will come to pass, and it will do so with the blessing of the people, or so the theory behind democracy as good government runs. For some the system is moving too slow, and that's bad. However, it's the inherent design of the system. It's ON PURPOSE. Why, you may ask? Because the founders worried about demagogues, about the passions of the people, about passion blurring reason to the point where some one is so centered on achieving the right that they will eviscerate the system to get it. A really really good, one that no one ever thinks of, is the Wiemar Republic.

Wiemar is, of course, the city in Germany where the German government of the 1920's and early 1930's was housed. Now, never forget that this was a people who was told by the rest of the world that they should shrivel up and die and fund the rest of everything in the process. The government was sort of set up for checks and balances, but the people felt so disconnected that the best supporters were the "reluctant republicans." Everyone else just ignored, or hated, or plotted. The disconnect between people and government was large, and troublesome. It opened the door to rhetoric, to people feeling they had to rescue themselves. Ultimately, of course, we arrive at the point where Adolf Hitler is ELECTED, in a fair (well, mostly fair) election. He was chosen-- most people forget that. All of this is to say that when passion takes over the system and puts it to use, you generally get bad things.

Bringing me back to California (if you're still with me and didn't yell "GODWIN'S" at the computer screen and leave), there is a system in place, and passionate people on BOTH sides of the issue are tearing it apart in the name of "the good." Ok, clearly only one of them can be right-- and that's AT MOST. My point is, the judges that voted no are not conservatives. On the contrary, most of them favor gay marriage. But they favor it being a measure of the people, by the people, for the people... have I heard that somewhere before? The issue at hand is not simply gay marriage (although it is there.) It is the furtherment of an agenda by a government agency that actively EXCLUDES the people from the thought process. When governments do that to people it usually ends in revolution. Although maybe CA will become that long promised island... Growing up in CA, your teachers always told you that "within ten years" (of what they never said) CA would be an island in the Pacific. So who knows.

It's possible someone else has commented on this, but I haven't seen it, and it intrigues me. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable then I will look at this and analyze it. For now, you're stuck with me.

Apparently, in Minnesota, there is a Catholic Church that has banned a 13 year old and his mother from attending Mass. The reason? He's autistic, and the Parish Pastor has deemed him dangerous, disruptive, and a threat. Now, I understand that he might be disruptive, but any more so then any child in there under, say, 5? I had a different post up here before, but now I'm not so sure about any of this. It strikes me as wrong, because clearly the family still has an obligation to attend, and the mom is banned. It also seems like in this day and age there should be an option for autistic/disabled people the same as the signed Mass for the deaf. It seems like everyone in this situation is racing toward vilifying the other, and that, at the very least, is not Christian. Now, I'm obviously not qualified to speak to much of this, but it seems to me this is a lose-lose, for the simple reason that the government is now involved. Maybe the priest felt like he had to involve them to keep an actual danger away. Maybe the kid isn't quite a danger yet. I don't know. What I do know is that this is going to be bad-- for the priest, for the mom, for the kid, for the Church.