Monday
Nov172008
With Equality and Justice for All
Monday, November 17, 2008 at 11:18AM
I've been thinking about a way to address the issue of Prop 8 and Prop 2, but, truth be told, this is one of those rare moments when I haven't been able to articulate how I feel to my satisfaction. I pride myself on my empathy, the ability to see "the other side" of things. I try to approach these issues by understanding the heart of the opposing opinion... I can't seem to do that in this context.
My love affair with the United States of America rests in the fact that, although, this nation, like every other, has engaged in oppressive acts, cruelty and unfairness, it's a nation in which the ideal of fairness has always existed. Throughout our history, this nation has examined itself and generally moved in the direction of fairness and equality.
That said, I see the passage of the current marriage legislation as a step backwards in our evolution. I wonder if the people who support this legislation understand that it opposes the very principles that allow them to practice their own beliefs as they see fit. It opposes the notion of equal rights and the basic notion of "fairness" that lies at the heart of the American spirit.
I don't think I can say it better than Keith Olbermann says it in this clip from MSNBC.
Olbermann Special Comment on Prop 8
You may have strong convictions about this issue in your personal life. I can understand that. But, if you are an American, your ethical and moral responsibilities should be to defend the equality and fairness that lies at the heart of who we are.
My love affair with the United States of America rests in the fact that, although, this nation, like every other, has engaged in oppressive acts, cruelty and unfairness, it's a nation in which the ideal of fairness has always existed. Throughout our history, this nation has examined itself and generally moved in the direction of fairness and equality.
That said, I see the passage of the current marriage legislation as a step backwards in our evolution. I wonder if the people who support this legislation understand that it opposes the very principles that allow them to practice their own beliefs as they see fit. It opposes the notion of equal rights and the basic notion of "fairness" that lies at the heart of the American spirit.
I don't think I can say it better than Keith Olbermann says it in this clip from MSNBC.
Olbermann Special Comment on Prop 8
You may have strong convictions about this issue in your personal life. I can understand that. But, if you are an American, your ethical and moral responsibilities should be to defend the equality and fairness that lies at the heart of who we are.
Reader Comments (26)
His comments were very well-written, although I felt like he pulled a bit too much from MLK towards the end.
Do unto others as you would have done to you... how flipping hard IS that?
I loved this when I saw it the first time. I love it still. Thanks!
Well, as far as history goes though, we are at the very least talking about it. We are acknowledging it. We are forcing ourselves, as a society, to make a decision.
And that's the beginning of progress, in the long run.
In other words - don't give up on us yet. ;-)
Right on, Keith.
It's so frustrating and dumbfounding. People are such idiots!
(Sorry - this gets me all riled up. I try hard to not even babble about it!)
Avitable: You say he pulled from MLK like it's a *bad* thing.
@Finn: I know, right?
@Miss Britt: I would never give up on us!! We are awesome when we want to be. ;)
@Sybil Law: Me too. I love Keith and I don't care who knows it. Keith is awesome.
I hate to reduce something so profound to something so trivial, but damn, Keith Olbermann is so hot in that distinguished dirty old man sort of way... :)
@Robin: OMG, I totally agree!! I was trying NOT to think that the whole time I was watching the clip. Heh.
totally agreed. he's up on my site too.
he says it way better than i can. and i agree with every word.
Have I told you that I totally love you?
Not today? Because I do. It still frustrates me that people don't understand or are not willing to see that what they are doing is taking away basic rights.
Both your statement about how people forget that it could be their rights taken away and Keith's brilliant montage are words that should echo in each person's ears. Rights for any reason, should never be put to the vote of the majority.
howdy doo. I'm back! (long, long, ackward pause) ok, this is just a trial ballon ok.
Welcome back, Karmy. ;-)
Faiqa ... You are always being taken in by media harlequins and major narcissists like Keith Olbermann, the former sports broadcaster who re-created himself into a constitutional law scholar and foreign/military policy expert. And that "special commentary," .. ha! The oh- so- serious references to "Mister Bush" and "Mister Cheney," and how they violated the constitution. Faiqa, you need to shop around a little more for your constitutional law scholars. I might suggest one who has, for example, actually gone to law school or passed a bar exam. Hmm, that brings to mind, one Ann Coulter, your fellow Republican. Seems she graduated from the U of Michigan with highest honors. But I digress .... What needs to be said here is that no state or territory of the United States has ever once denied lesbians or homosexuals the right to get married. Mister Olbermann can't cite a single case in which state officials denied a marriage license to a homosexual who applied to marry a person of the opposite gender. (There's a small, irritating factoid for liberals to mull over on the road to Obamalot :-D) Obviously, what liberal elites desire is to change the definition of marriage, which, by the way, is fine with me if states like Marxachusetts want to enact same-sex (not gay!) marriage laws through democratic procedures such as legislation or constitutional referendums. What's not acceptable is for some unelected liberal elitist in a black robe deciding an issue that's clearly within the constitutional province of the states to decide. By the way, it's not gay marriage. It's same-sex marriage. Lesbians, you might have noticed, aren't gay. They're mostly just angry. :-D If gaybos and lezbos want to change the laws, they are going to have to go about it the same way we do, in a democratic, constitutional, way. I would hasten to add that if unelected liberal judges are going to use the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause to change the definitions of state marriage laws with regard to the gender requirements of those laws, what's to stop polygamists from demanding exactly the same changes with respect to the number of people who may participate in marriage? (Answer: nothing. And indeed, polygamists have already filed those lawsuits!) See ya soon.
Your beloved,
karmi :-D
@karmi:
Ann Coulter? Screw Ann Coulter. She is a divisive bitch whose own personal popularity far outweighs any sense of patriotic or intellectual duty she may have to this country. Her possession of a law degree or any credentials will never diminish the fact that she has whored out her own credentials in order to sensationalize topics that should be addressed with rational and even temperaments. Don't ever suggest Ann Coulter to me again except if I'm asking for advice on how I can dress more like a discount prostitute.
"Olbermann can’t cite a single case in which state officials denied a marriage license to a homosexual who applied to marry a person of the opposite gender..."
You know, this is so typical of *your* style. To focus on inconsequential details and miss out on the big picture. I'm way too busy to come up with counterpoints to arguments that are so ridiculously obtuse to the topic in question.
And for someone who is so "conservative," don't think I missed your attempt to get PC with Mr. Olbermann regarding the nomenclature of same sex marriage. Apparently, hypocrisy is not limited to us elitest liberals.
Faiqa .. lol :-D I see I pretty much devastated Olbermann's credentials and his argument. Sorry, if the facts hurt, Faiqa. And I wasn't in the least trying to be "PC" in regard to nomenclature. PC is something the left does. How is my insistence on clear language "PC"? Trivial perhaps, but not PC.
In any case, I'm at a loss to understand how the Constitution can be considered as "inconsequential" to the issue of same-sex or gay marriage (whichever you prefer). Further, Olbermann isn't a lawyer, as I pointed out, which doesn't in itself prove he's wrong, but the case called Loving vs. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967), does. Loving was the case in which the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) struck down Virginia's "anti-miscegenation" law using the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Long story short: Virginia argued that the Lovings, an interracial couple who had married (legally) in Wash. D.C., violated Virginia law when they returned to Virginia to cohabitate after their marriage. Virginia contended that their anti-miscegenation law should be upheld because the state had a legitimate state intererest in the maintenance of "racial purity" or separation of the races. To which SCOTUS unanimously replied that Virginia had no legitimate state interest in the perpetuation of "racial purity" which was, they concluded, a euphemism for white supremacy. What's important here is this: Virginia never argued that the institution of marriage would be destroyed if the Lovings were immune from criminal prosecution. They argued only that the races would be destroyed. Conservatives are arguing today that marriage as an institution will be destroyed if same-sex couples are recognized under state laws as valid marriages because it will open the door to a host of other relationships deemed presently by the majority as not worthy of that status. For us, it's a Pandora's Box which will ultimately lead to the destruction of marriage. We look to Europe for our proof: No one gets married in Europe today because marriage is regarded as an empty, meaningless, relic of a religious past. When everyone or every combination of people can get married, it cheapens the institution.
By the way, radical leftists have been saying for years that the destruction of the institutions (hierarchies of privilege) of the west must proceed, but they proceed by undermining the institutions. It all goes back to the Italian Marxist Gramsci ... "the long march through western institutions" .... but that's a story for another day.
Faiqa, get some aspirin and call your doctor in the morning if your conservative hate fever hasn't broken by then. :-D But thx for lettin me post. :-*
YeW GnO i WuB YeW,
karmi
P.S. Ann Coulter already admitted that she's a highly divisive person. She said that means that if she started agreeing with liberals about all these political matters, then they'd stop calling her "divisive." heh heh :-D
karmi
Karmi, with such a high divorce rate in the US, marriage is already empty, meaningless, and a relic of the past, so why prevent any citizens from enjoying it while they can?
The main question, which you seem to sidestep at the same time that you glibly use phrases like "Marxachusetts", is why anyone would support inequal rights for law-abiding, taxpaying US citizens.
@Karmi: I don't think Adam could have said it better, I would really like to see you address his point.
But on the matter of Coulter...
She's divisive because she spews crap like "Jews need to be perfected (into Christianity)" and suggests that it's ok to call American Muslims ragheads because some of Arab Muslims blew up the WTC. She likes to think that the hatred for her lies within the parameters of political discourse, but it actually lies within my unerring belief that she is just a bad person. She hates everyone who is not like her and believes that only those who are like her (white and conservative...oh. yes, I said it...) should benefit from the rights that should belong to all Americans. Unfortunately, the fact that you promote her as an "expert" speaks volumes about what you believe the moral character of this country should be with regards to inclusion, American authenticity and diversity.
Faiqa ... I see you didn't take my advice, and you are still flaming about Ann Coulter. *sigh* Actually, A.C. never said that "Jews need to be perfected (into Christianity)." What she said was that Christians regard themselves as perfected Jews. She said that in an interview with that guy Buddy Groover ... er ... I mean, Donnie Deutsch. Deutsch and Olbermann are related ya know. Their uncle Morrie got them both jobs at NBC news when they had no credentials at all. heh heh. (You know that's a joke, they are not related.) Anyway, Deutsch, ever the hawk-eyed defender of Judaism, immediately seized on Coulter's shamelessly anti-Semitic remark and accused her of saying exactly the words you just (falsely) ascribed to her. Deutsch is a little bit like his cousin ... er ... fellow broadcaster Olbermann in that he's an expert in virtually every subject under the sun, including the Christian faith.
Having been raised in that particular faith tradition, I think I know ummm a little more about it than say, ... Donnie Deutsch, who, God bless him, wouldn't know a catechism from a bar-mitzvah. :-D Anyway, the bottom line is that Christians actually do believe exactly that: Christians are perfected Jews. Yes, it's all true. They have been goosestepping to that tune for about 2000 years now, all those viscious Christian anti-Semites haha.
Here's how it happened: After Jesus died, or split, depending on what ya believe, heh heh, St. Peter and St. Paul had a falling out about exactly that issue. Pete said that Christians should keep doin' all those Jewish things, like all that food washin' and ceremonial stuff. But Pauly said that, because the Christians were people of the New Covenant, they didn't have to obey the laws of Judaism any more. They were "perfected Jews," ya see. And that's eggzactly what St. Pauly called us, and the position that the early church fathers embraced .. uh .. in a doctrinal sense, ya see. Pauly won that argument, cuz the brothers n sisters all referred to themselves thereafter as Christians, the Jews who didn't have to practice the old religion.
As for the other thing. I never heard Coulter to say nuffin about "ragheads," although she did say (on 9-12) that we should send troops to those parts of the world and force them to convert at gunpoint. heh heh .. ah well, she takes the Christian obligation to convert the heathen a little too seriously. Anyway, as a white southerner, I've been called waaay far worse than a raghead. Trust me. lol But we are livin' in the United States of the Offended now, so I perty much dropped those references from my vocabulary. I want everyone to wub me hee hee :-D Nobody's perfect though. So there ya have it, a little of dis ... a little of dat. I got to get back to my pork stew. heh heh We been makin' that for Christmas since ... well ... St Pauly said it was ok. heh heh *sonorous Bing Crosby voice*
I'm dreaming of a white Christmas ...
karmi
Oh ... Avitable ... dude, did you mean, "unequal" ? I don't think "inequal" is a word. But as I just explained to you, the state marriage laws aren't unequal. Anyone gay or straight can apply to marry someone of the opposite sex. Gaybos simply want to re-define the institution. Is that so difficult for you to understand? uh ... nevermind, forget I asked. lol :-D Another thing: actually the US divorce rate has declined somewhat in recent years. But, even if it hadn't, please explain how re-defining marriage to include gaybos and lezbos is going to re-invigorate marriage. You assume that gays won't get divorced??? Dude, just because some people do bad things which cause the break up of their marriages, how do you conclude that we should open up marriage to gaybos and lezbos? You think that would improve the divorce rate? Oh ... maybe you mean that because some heterosexual people are bad people, we should destroy the institution. hmmmm I get it now ... uh ... I think. :-\
karmi
Ok .. one more post before Christmas. Faiqa, I had no idea you and the pope are related! lol How else can we understand your claim to be "unerring"? You just justified your ad hominem attack on Ms. Coulter by a claim to unerring judgment in the matter of moral judgments. lol Or am I misunderstanding your argument? I suspect that you read a lot in the leftwing blogosphere so that 98% of what you read about Ms. Coulter is not what she says, but what the lefties say she is saying. Faiqa, try to get a firsthand account of what she says before spewing the party line about what she says. And another thing: Ms. Coulter would hardly need to prostitute herself; she makes millions from her books. I am still trying to understand your argument about her "duty" to her country. Could you expand on this "duty" thing a little, Faiqa? Anyway, Donnie Deutsch really displayed his hopelessly ignorant view of Christians. Even if you accept Deutsch's interpretation of the exchange he had with Coulter, is it really all that shocking to learn that Christians think that Jews must be perfected? This is precisely the same as saying that Jews must believe and accept Christ. It's merely saying that Jews and Christians have a disagreement. So freakin' what? Hey, want some really shocking information? I hear that a Muslim imam insists that Christians must accept Mohammed as the Prophet of God. Wow! How outrageously bigoted of him! Hey and the pope insists that Protestants must come back to the one true church! Wow! The bigotry and intolerance is just overwhelming! Protestants still have the timerity to actually insist that Catholics must reform! All those narrow minded bigots, so little time, right Faiqa? Gotta go ... must go now have a merry merry Winter Solstice festival. lol
karmi
Karmi,
"Inequal" is a word. It means "unequal".
Why should marriage be anything other than a civil agreement between two consenting adults? You have yet to explain that in any way other than just throwing invective around.
I'm guessing that if you had been in the US back when non-whites weren't allowed to marry whites, you'd have supported that, too, though. I mean, that would redefine the institution of marriage, and why would anyone ever want to do that? I mean, you're a big fan of racial purity, right, Karmi?
I re-read my words and didn't see anywhere that I suggested that allowing gay marriage would reinvigorate the institution of marriage. I'm simply saying that the institution of marriage as some holy notion only exists in the minds of misguided idiots and people still living in 1950. Marriage is a secular, civil instrument that gives rights to people who want to officially, in the eyes of the government, make the decision to merge their lives and their finances.
So, basically, your argument against allowing same-sex marriage has as much weight as an argument against a gay man paying his property appraisal tax or a lesbian who wants to get a city permit for a garage sale.
@Karmi: My opinions of Coulter are based solely upon what I have *seen* of her. Both of the incidents that I mentioned, I saw for myself on television. And while you're right she did say that Christians think of themselves as perfected Jews, I still think her statement was obnoxious.
What is to you?
What is it to you if a guy marries a guy?
Does your salvation depend upon it? Isn't that the basis of your discrimination?
In your own terms of your religion...I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
Or are you just jealous?
Simply put.. WORRY ABOUT YOUR F'ING SELF.
Avitable ... you awoke me from my holiday slumber. Shame on you. 1. Inequal ..hmmm not in my dictionary. 2. Marriage can already be simply a civil agreement between consenting adults, including homosexuals. They have the right to enter into contractual arrangements, but they don't have the right to have those arrangements recognized by the state because the legislatures in about 47 states have said that is not within the definition of marriage in those states. Gaybos can tie the knot in a religious ceremony too. No one is going to stop them, least of all, karmi. 3. Your guess is wrong in two respects: a. I WAS around back when the Loving vs. Virginia was decided by a unanimous SCOTUS (which included the conservatives on the court) and b. No, actually I NEVER supported anti-misegenation laws for the primary reason that they were unbelievably stupid, not to mention unenforceable, which is exactly what Barry Goldwater and Wm. F. Buckley Jr. said about them. So your "guess" that I am a racist doesn't hold any water, sonny. The court did not say that interracial marriage would change the institution of marriage, and, as I pointed out, that wasn't even the contention of the state of Virginia in defending their law against interracial marriage. They said it would destroy the races. Do you not read well Avitable? :-\ You're a typical liberal ... assuming 90% of the things you say without any evidence for it. In any case, your argument is trailing off into ad hominem, so can it clown. lol
:-D 4. I never said that you said that gay marriage would re-invigorate marriage. I inferred that from what you had written, and I asked you to explain it, IF that was your contention. Now that you deny it was, I can see your point clearly which was ... uh ... what exactly? lol 5. Marriage is indeed a secular institution, but it has religious roots. You are not suggesting that marriage started in 1787 when the government was established are you? lol Marriage was originally established and recognized by religious bodies, duuuuh. When did I ever say that marriage is some kind of "holy institution"? And what difference does it make if it is regarded as a holy institution as long as it is offered to all on the same basis? As I explained, gays are simply NOT forbidden by American law to enter into the institution of marriage. They just can't marry a person of the same gender, and that is a matter for state law definition. If you want to change the definition then by all means, go for it, but don't try to tell me that the state does not have the authority to define marriage, and don't tell me that the constitution forbids them from doing so in a manner which excludes the legal union of a same sex couple. That is in fact exactly what the states are constitutionally authorized to do. So, get honest about what you are trying to do. Admit that you are trying to change the definition rather than asserting a constitutional right where there is none which is what you doing now. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRY WHOMEVER YOU WISH. There were very good reasons for all those proscriptions on marriage, and I see no reason to abandon them after 5000 years. That's a rationale for marriage and human relationships that goes waaay back into human history, indeed, into the "sacred history" of every major religion on earth, including Islam. I am sorry that you find this "offensive," but religion is the ultimate source of most of our law today. Will we abandon our laws against murder or rape or arson or incest today because they have their origins in religion? Anyway, after you get honest, then go out and start a constitutional initiative to change it. And good luck. lol In the meantime, you will have to be content with a contract. Oh sorry, I didn't mean YOU ... I meant heh heh .. gay people. Zia ... apparently you don't read well either. I never said that if one man "marries" another that will necessarily result in some direct harm to me. What I said (for the umpteenth time) is that if the state sanctions same-sex marriage, it will have no choice but to grant that same right to polygamists and others to whom the state presently denies that "right." And that is because radical homosexualists insist that theirs is a struggle for a civil right, and not merely an attempt to diminish the authority of the state on this issue. The inclusion of same sex marriage within the states' definition of marriage will empower the radical Left to collapse what they call the "hierarchies of privilege," the cultural institutions which are the basis of western capitalism, and democratic government. Antonio Gramsci had theorized that the way to destroy America was to collapse its cultural institutions by undermining their authority. Same sex marriage is a Pandora's box which will only be the beginning because marriage is so fundamentally important to our culture, society, and law. I suggest that you read Jo Doezema, a radical Left theoretician, who openly advocates the destruction of marriage by means of opening it up to every conceivable relationship. Google her. She is completely up front about the aims of the far Left. Faiqa do yourself a favor, go and read Coulter's blog. Some of it is free. I am gettin' worried about that fever hun, you've been foaming at the mouth for hours. :-\
karmi
Anyone who wants to continue this conversation with "Karmi" can google search him, try to find his blog (which he doesn't have), or sacrifice the blood of a virgin and burn it on a makeshift altar in the hopes of conjuring him up. Unless my technical savvy has failed miserably (not unfathomable), he shouldn't be seen around here again.
Go. Get. Your. Own. Blog. Dammit.