Re: Argonaut editorial

[ltrwritr@moscow.com (Mark Rounds)]

>I just thought equal rights meant just that.  Men and women, or women and men 
>if you prefer, equal.  Both shirted seems to be as equal to me as both 
>topless.  
>
**
So following your logic, if I remove some of your Civil Rights, its ok as
long everybodies is reduced the same amount?  And if I am not for that then
I must not be for equal rights?  I am sorry, that really does not compute.
By that logic, since the citizens of Porto Rico can't vote for president,
then we should all forego that right.  Same field, different ball.
**

><<When the abolitionists prior to the
>Civil War determined in their own hearts that all men were created equal,
>they didn't say, "well, in order not to rock the boat, why don't we go down
>south and become slaves so we will all be equal.".  Instead they struggled
>to bring the rights of the slave population to a par with that of the free
>white man.  Similarly, when the Civil Rights movement of the 60's became a 
>cause that
>people paid attention to, Martin Luther King did not say that we should all
>move to the back of the bus, instead he tried to say that we should all sit
>or stand based on needs and courtesy, not the color of your skins.>>
>
>The arguments you make regarding slavery and the civil rights movement don't 
>work for me.  The argument against slavery was not for equality but that it 
>was wrong and should not be allowed.  Period, end of story; no 
>sensationalism, at least in their position, if not the war.  

**
I Will agree with you that they all said that slavery was wrong.  But why
did they say it was wrong?  I challenge you to read the writings of Fredrick
Douglas, Harriet Beecher Stowe, William Loyd Garrison or even the fire
brand, John Brown just to mention a few though I can list more.  They are
very specific that all men are created equal under the eyes of God.  William
Loyd Garrison in the text of "The Liberator" takes it further, stating that
no race of man may take the rights of another based on the color of his
skin.  While the Civil War was not fought primarily for the abolition of
slavery and the equality of the black man, it certainly was the rallying cry
of the abolitionist.
**
The argument for 
>the civil rights movement was that blacks deserved and wanted the freedoms 
>others had. It was as simple as "I have a dream."
>
**
This actually supports what I am saying to my mind.  Please tell me how it
does not.
**

>If what you want is women to be allowed to be topless because men are, just 
>say so.
**
If that was what I meant, then I would have indeed said exactly that.  My
objection is a bit more philisophical.  My concern is the violation of the
14th Amendment  that states in part "No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equal protection under the law means, in my mind, that you can't write laws
that  pertain to only one portion of society, in this case women.  Do not
mistake my end goal here.  I do think the police need a tool to stop things
like the topless carwash, but it can be done with a sexual oriented business
ordinance that I would support and a more strict application of the state
laws already on the books that govern this sort of thing.

Years ago, as a young man, I swore an oath as an Air Force cadet, to protect
and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  I
stand for this Amendment as much as I stand for the 2nd Amendment which gets
me in trouble with the other side of the polical fence.  
**


>
><<its reassuring that you have found something that you find objectional with 
>this ordinance, namely the adopting of a city wide dress code.>>
>
>You are giving me credit for something I didn't say.  My post said, "you have 
>confirmed my belief that the "equal rights" position on this issue is not 
>valid.  It has to do with either not wanting restrictions on female clothing 
>or a desire to go bare breasted."  I'm just looking for truth in advertising.
>
>
**
Below is a portion of your response.  If I got what were your words mixed
with some of Garrett's, then I do apologize but this appears to me to say
that you don't beleive that a local ordinance should dictate local fashion.
If this is not your position, then what is? or is this purely an exercise in
logic?
**

"Not a prudish view, but you have confirmed my belief that the "equal rights" 
position on this issue is not valid.  It has to do with either not wanting 
restrictions on female clothing or a desire to go bare breasted.  As you 
said, <<It is plain to see why this law was crafted the way it was:  To steer 
the 
dress code of Moscow.  Some people are offended by current trends in fasion, 
and now we have a law to restrict said fasion.
I don't think it is the governments duty to dictate our dress code.  There 
are plenty of community's that have a dress code.  Go join one if you can't 
handle the current fasion in Moscow.>>  I've just wanted your position to be
an honest one. "

Mark Rounds