Robert Frost once wrote:

Two roads diverged in a wood and I- I took the one less travelled by, and that has made all the difference. 

My life has never been easy. I’m always given obstacles it seems, since I was little practically. Many do not even know the majority of them. At times, I do hate it. At others, I realize how much I am better for it. I definitely have traveled a path less traveled. And it certainly has made all the difference. 

Stop Hating

  
     Why is there such a reason to hate on people these days? Why does one insist on focusing on the negatives? Even when they say they aren't, one knows they are. One may say they are not effected; yet, whenever someone mentions their name, one has an overwhelming emotion come over them. Whether they admit it to another human being is a different story. Hate is toxic. Hate is consuming. Why would one waste so much energy on someone? Why focus on being toxic? Now, this is not to say that everyone should be best friends. That's simply too idealistic hippy-esque for me. But, that is to say one does need to try and be more positive around those you are less fond of. If you try to be more positive, even around people who are not, that hatred feeling will go away. Will you be more fond of those people? No....well, most likely not anyways. But you will be happier. Happier with yourself, and happier with the world. Try not to focus on hate. Hate is toxic. Hate is consuming. Stop the hating. 

Anarchy: The Way to Go

An example that demonstrates anarchy is in the movie, Accepted. Bartleby Gaines decides to create a new college when he is not accepted to any existing colleges. At first Bartleby was obeying the system; he tried to get into a recognized institute by following their process. When that strategy did not work, he decided to exit the system to which he disagreed with. As metaphorically “retreating to the mountains”, he retreated to an abandoned building out of the way. He then notices issues with other colleges, how they restrict students’ intellect, and how students punish others for not fitting in. So Bartleby now cannot simply obey nor can he simply leave; he is too aware of problem the current system creates. Bartleby quickly realizes he cannot destroy the entire system of higher education; so he fights it by working within their system. He appears before an accreditation board, describes his individual college and the reasons why it is important for this college to be approved. It goes against the common educational experience, opening the doors for innovation. He explains what is wrong with the current situation, and how his particular institute can address the problems.  He follows their process for accreditation; yet, he still revised the system because of how his college individual processes on its own campus. Bartleby challenges the process, while working with the process to improve it. In the end, Bartleby did what was morally right.  While this example deals with education, the focus of this paper is the law.

There are many ways of looking at law. Is it right? Is it fair? Should we obey? Should fight? In order to answer these questions, one must answer the question, “Is the law, or authority legitimate?” Knowledge of a law’s legitimacy aids in one’s discussion making to obey, disobey and protest in order to improve it, or disobey and leave the law’s limits. If a law is indeed legitimate, there is a moral obligation to obey it, to support it, and to not interfere with it.  One obeys the law by simply not breaking it.  One supports it by paying taxes and teaching younger generations to follow such laws. One does not interfere with authority and law, for instance, when one refuses to lie to the police during an investigation. One knows if an authority is legitimate if the request in not immoral, if it is made by a legitimate process (i.e. due process). Anarchists argue that state commands could not be legitimate and must be broken, with good cause.  The anarchist position is controversial; however, there is some validity to their stance.

There are three reasons to obey. One should obey the law if it is morally right. If it is moral, one is obligated to. One could obey the law they fear the law. One fears the law because the law has power to punish those who disobey the law without justification. One may also obey the law through submission. One simply lies to oneself about the laws morality, pretending it is moral so that one can easily follow it.  To anarchists, this logic is unacceptable.  Not only is it unacceptable, it is immoral not to sincerely judge the law. If it is morally sound request from the state, then obey; if it is wrong, then do not obey. If one does not stop to question it first, one is acting immorally. To “go against the system”, one may take a few different paths. One may fight the law, and revise the system from within. One may destroy the system entirely, and replace it with a new system. Or, one may simply exit the state’s jurisdiction that is confined by the system.

Law and the authority that creates law, although not one hundred percent right, still carry a higher moral weight than if one simply exited society to live off their own rules. This perspective is the Service View. This theory is very Utilitarianism in thought, since it is numbered based. For instance, my actions, when I rule myself, meet my needs and morality about eighty-nine percent of the time; yet, if I obey the law, percentage rises to ninety-five percent of the time.

Since I appear to be more successful when obeying authority as opposed to disobeying it, I therefore should obey it one hundred percent of the time. This decision, according to this view, is the only logical decision. There are several issues with this argument. If the state decides the numbers, not me or another high level being; this leaves room for the state to deceive society by proving false numbers. Furthermore, the law is not one hundred percent right; following the law one hundred percent of the time may lower my percentage. It is morally wrong to simply follow without question due to this fact. It is still morally wrong to exit the law territory without of trying to correct the wrong.  Fighting and revising must take place before one can leave.  One may leave when there is proof that revisions have not addressed the problem, there are still signs of insincerity and when continuing to fight causes for harm than good. For instance, if one continuous fights, eventually people stop listening to the message. Furthermore, if one focuses on the fight for too long, one may lose sight on other important aspects of the situation. Time then is better spent leaving, or creating a new jurisdiction.

            In conclusion, when looking at law there are several choices: obey, fight and revise, destroy and leave. One should obey if the law is legitimate, and the law does not ask for an immoral action. One could also obey out of fear of punishment, or ignorance of the law’s immorality. One may destroy the law, and start a new system if one finds the current law unjust. One may fight the law and revise it from within the system. One may also leave the law’s jurisdiction, but only if one has tried to correct the law. To leave beforehand is immoral, as well. 

Homosexuals, Marriage and the Law

A constitution is a legal document that holds a state’s upmost values. It is moral. It is powerful. A violation of the constitution leads to punishments ranging from impeachment of office to federal jail sentences. It is also the law. All laws originate from a constitution. Constitutions attempt to assure the right use of state power by guiding rulers through ideals and constraining them through law. We want politics to be justified by right, not might.  In law, when there is a conflict, the courts hear the case and make a ruling. The Supreme Court hears cases that involve Constitutional law. The Supreme Court can and should void a law that violates the Constitution, in terms of civil rights, for example.

In the case of gay marriage, only certain states allow marriage between two people of the same sex. Other states refuse to recognize the couple as legitimate. The constitution states that every state has to recognize each other’s legal documents, such as marriage licenses and birth certificates. For instance, I was born in Virginia, and then moved to Ohio. Ohio can not rule that I was not born, even though I have a birth certificate, based on that I was not born in Ohio. Likewise, if I marry in the state of Ohio, and I travel to Michigan, I am still married and Michigan must recognize my marriage license. Unfortunately, if I was a lesbian and married my partner in the state of New York, and moved to Ohio, my marriage is not recognized as a legitimate marriage.  There is a disconnect between state policy and Constitutional law. If this was in a court case, and the Supreme Court was ruling, there would be several reasons to rule in favor of not changing current state laws to recognize gay marriage licenses from other states. They include, but are not limited to the following reasons: strict interpretation with Framer’s intent, tradition, and strict scrutiny. There are flaws in all of these reasons. If the Court did rule on such a case, the Court should not follow these theories. They should rule in a way to move the law forward.

            A perspective of strict interpretation is that we should interpret the constitution using what the Framers of the constitution intended. The Framer’s had a purpose while writing the constitution. They wrote vaguely, yet with a common idea in mind. One way to interpret the constitution is to look towards their intent, and rule accordingly. However, there are a few issues with this interpretation. Firstly, we do not know who all the framers were.  There are those who wrote the constitution, those who brought up the need for amendments, those wrote the amendments, and the list can continue on. Secondly, obviously there are many. Chances are they did not agree one hundred percent with each other. So which framer’s opinion do we listen to? The one whose thoughts coincide with our more favorable ruling? One cannot read minds to know exactly their thoughts on the matter, how it relates to the constitution or what they were envisioning while writing it. Furthermore, their thoughts and what they envisioned at the time may change over time, once they start to know the facts since then. For instance, with slavery, they did not intend originally, for the most part, on freeing slaves in the south. Maybe after time, like others in the country, their thoughts and intentions would change. Even if the framers would disagree with abolishing slavery, today we understand how immoral it would be to not. In the case of gay marriage, they were not thinking of marriage as man and wife, as well as man and man, wife and wife. Yet, to deny citizens their rights is still immoral, regardless if framers intent agrees or disagrees.

            Another way to look at the constitution, in a more loose interpretation, is through tradition. There are unwritten laws in the constitution in the form of tradition. There is an idea that the Court should rule in favor of tradition. However, traditions can change. If the tradition changes in society, interpretation should as well. Back when the Framers were working, the concept of marriage and the tradition were different than they are now. Divorces did not occur, especially to the extent they do now. There was one man and one woman. The woman stayed home while the man worked. But the tradition and concept of marriage have changed, and are currently changing even more so. Now, there are divorces. There are men who stay home while the woman makes the income. There are single parent families, another occurrence not common in the Framers time period. The interpretation should change as well.

Gay marriage is not fully accepted by all this new form of marriage. Therefore, getting a rulings to interpret loosely and have gay marriages recognized as a legitimate marriage in all fifty states would be difficult due to strict scrutiny. The courts also base decisions on whether ruling in a certain way may cause more harm than good. In the case of gay marriage, to rule in the favor of making it a legally recognized marriage, there may be an increase on violence against homosexuals. But at the same time, should one let violence stop them from pursuing morality and equality? When new ideas about slavery came about, so did changes in law; but not all agreed. Groups such as the Klu Klux Klan lashed out at African Americans, but the law still progressed forward while holding the KKK accountable for their crimes. Likewise, in the instance of same sex marriage, the law should move forward, holding those who act out their disagreements accountable.

            There are several ways of interpreting the constitution and several reasons why. A few, like tradition and Framer’s intent, may slow down the process of change, as well as other aspects of the legal system not mentioned earlier (i.e. Article V). Strict scrutiny can as well, but usually for a good cause, like minimizing harm. However, at a certain point, these theories should be set aside for a change. These played a role in the time of slavery as well; still, there was a moral obligation to ensure African Americans their rights. Presently there is a moral obligation to ensure homosexuals their rights. 

Mark Twain

“Love your enemy, it will scare the hell out of them.”