Ask the nearest hippie

In his dissent on the Supreme Court’s historic decision on gay marriage Justice Antonin Scalia offered this:

“Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think that Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.”

Regardless of where one stands on the question–and I stand firmly on the side of love–we should be impressed by Scalia’s ability to reach back some 50 years for a cultural reference, all the while doing virtuosic leaps of logic. Then again, perhaps he meant “hipster.” Also perhaps his marriage of 48 years ain’t going all that well. Maureen, you are in my thoughts and prayers.

But whether he meant hippie or hipster, he may be on to something.

Hippies defied convention.

Hippies valued love over war.

Hippies created lots of music and art that has stood the test of time.

Hippies were inclusive.

Hippies challenged the status quo, often pushing society to embrace new norms.

Many hippies were far more remarkable than those who shunned them.

Maybe we could use a few more hippies?

Ask the nearest hippie indeed.

And we just might want to heed their advice.

4 thoughts on “Ask the nearest hippie

  1. Reminds me of the Apply ad “here’s to all the crazy ones” Every day we teach our kids and ourselves to conform, and yet we spend loads of time and money to improve and change personally. What’s interesting is the balance (perceived or real) perhaps the yin and yang in America of these seemingly opposing forces. Would we be the same if one did not exist or was significantly weaker, or deprived of it’s existance? The more I become convinced of my own beliefs the more I’m understanding the importance and need of the other views and defending their right to exist.

  2. Steve:

    It is hardly virtuosic leaps of logic to refer to the Constitution: Article [X] (Amendment 10 – Reserved Powers) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    Many of us who are not opposed to gay marriage are, however, unalterably opposed to making a mockery of the Constitution.

    My personal view, not that of the company’s.

    [logo-2.jpg]Cliff Slater
    1520 Liona Street • Honolulu, HI • 96814
    direct: 808.943.8304
    cell: 808.285.7799

    1. Cliff, I appreciate the comment. Actually the point you make I think is the only logical objection to the Court’s ruling. I was referring to other things Scalia said in his opinion.

      Having said that, I think it’s rather obvious that the Court has interpreted the Constitution in favor of the intent of the Declaration of Independence and has stepped in on any number of occasions where basic human rights were being denied and the Constitution provides no absolutely clear guidance. Obviously one could wait, as was case with abolishing slavery and denying Women’s right to vote and decide to take the route of an Amendment.

      But in my mind, the right to pursue happiness is self evident. Of course there is the obvious harm caused to same-sex couples who, every day, are denied access to health care, visitation rights to see loved one in the hospital and so forth. There is no harm to the other side, other than the fantasy that somehow a heterosexual marriage is somehow lessened by homosexuals right to marry. That to me is as nonsensical as the idea that my diet is ruined by your consuming a donut–or vice versa. When in doubt, I always vote on the side of compassion and individual rights. How that makes a mockery of the Constitution I don’t get. At all.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.