Red v. Blue?

By now, I'm guessing most people have probably seen this "Dear Red States" letter from Craigslist or elsewhere.

In the same less-than-entirely-serious vein...

---

Dear Blue States,

We'd like to point out that in a red/blue split, most of Washington State — the entire state from the Cascades east — would stay.  Sure, Seattle, Everett, Tacoma and Olympia would probably leave with you.  We're OK with that.  I think much of New Hampshire and Vermont would have a few words to say about you taking the entire northeast, too, and I suspect a big chunk of upstate New York and Maine would stay — especially if we can have the real Republican party back, not these ex-Democrat neocon wackos who've subverted it.  You're welcome to Massachusetts, though.  (And Connecticut?  "Don't tread on me", my ass.)

We're so glad you're taking Hollywood.  Those people are completely delusional.

Enjoy Yosemite.  We get to keep the Grand Canyon, the Painted Desert, Yellowstone, Natural Arches, the Bonneville Salt Flats, and the Black Rock Desert.  We get the Rockies, the Cascades, the Grand Tetons, the Black Hills, the Appalachians, the Adirondacks, the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Smokies.  You can have the Hudson River, San Francisco Bay and Puget Sound; we get to keep Cape Hatteras and the Outer Banks, Chesapeake Bay, Daytona Beach, and the Florida Keys.  You get the Needles; we get Mount Rushmore and Crazy Horse Mountain.  You get the Hollywood sign, Interstate 5, the nation's worst traffic congestion, and the smog in the Bay Area and LA; we keep Hoover Dam and Boulder Dam.  You get Mount Shasta, Mount Hood and Mount St. Helens; we keep Pike's Peak, Mount McKinley, and Denali.

We get pretty much all of the beef cattle, and pretty much the entire Wheat Belt and Corn Belt.  (But you can make your bread from soy flour, right?  We hope you can grow enough soybeans.)  You take the California fruit with you; we get to keep Georgia's (better) peaches and Florida's (better) oranges.

Sure, you get most of the domestic pot.  You're welcome to it.  You get to keep most of the gangbangers along with it.  (You get to take the majority of the nation's crime with you, in fact.  We salute your noble sacrifice.)  We, on the other hand, get to keep all of that lovely Kentucky bourbon — in fact, just about all of the domestic whiskey/bourbon production — and a few 'shiners.  I'm pretty certain we get the better end of that trade.

But you're bloody well welcome to Illinois.  Take it and Michigan both with our blessings.  Please!  You get the domestic auto industry, too.  We hope that works out well for you.  And Washington DC!  Oh, please, please take Washington DC.  We'll take all of your gun-owners off your hands, if you'll just take DC.  You know you want to.

(Oh, and make sure you don't accidentally leave Maryland or Delaware behind.  We'll even throw in New Jersey.  How's that for a deal?)

A different point of view

I keep thinking about this, then keep forgetting to post it.

Almost all of the arguments presented for allowing gay marriage, and against bans on same, focus on it from the angle of discrimination and equal protection under the law.  The next thing that happens is you have a bunch of people mincing weasel-words and arguing that it isn't really discrimination, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

It seems to me this argument misses a key point.  Barring those who just want to argue about the terminology, the people seriously objecting to allowing gay couples to marry, virtually without exception, do so on religious grounds, and more to the point, specifically on capital-C Christian religious grounds.  They say it's an abomination in the sight of their god, or some such verbiage.

So, if the law allows a religion to define what marriage is, and the religious definition of marriage allows hetero couples to marry, because that's what the religion in question says they should do, but bars gay couples from marrying because the religion says that's wrong, then the law is being subjugated to that specific religion.  Any legal ban on gay marriage dictated by some religion's principles thus becomes a law respecting an establishment of that religion.  Bam, direct Establishment Clause violation, clearly unconstitutional, game over.  Open-and-shut case.

... Or am I missing something?

Yes, I know that technically the First Amendment constrains only Congress from passing a law "respecting an extablishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof".  And many States feel they don't have to be bound by the Constitution when they don't feel like it — like California, for example, which "does not consider the Second Amendment to be incorporated into the California State Constitution."  I have never had the slightest respect for this argument.  It amounts to saying, "Yes, we agreed to abide by the Constitution when we joined the Union, but we had our fingers crossed."  You want to be a US state?  You obey and respect the Constitution.  ALL of it.  Period.  You want to pick and choose which parts of it apply to you?  Maybe you think your state should allow slavery, or deny women the vote?  Go the hell away and form your own nation.