"The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain and it was placed in the Declaration not for that, but for future use." - President Abraham Lincoln
My hope for the Obama presidency is that at will be characterized by efforts to fill in the blaring gaps in our democracy - our moral failures that bely our misguided attempts to equate moralism with morality. My wish list is for equitably quantified full and unqualified civil rights for all - sans caveats - and a humanist agenda, period.
As many have pointed out in their brilliant posts, my home state of California as well as my current state of residence Florida, have shown their true colors in the election this year, which has national and local repercussions, as well as ushers in a global impact for those who strive for comprehensive and indiscriminately applied civil rights.
In an equitable and truly righteous society, the inferior form of - and hopefully recessive gene for patriotism - must not survive. Were self-serving chauvanism and a decidely yielding civil consciousness pigments, the degenerate majority who voted to ban anything other than a civil union between same sex couples in those states, would be declared albinos.
GW Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln
Proposition a 8 in California, and Consitutional Amendment Proposition 2 in Florida were utter contradictions to our otherwise irrefutable mission to unite the nation that we swore no one would steal from us. Change came for most of us, by will and by sheer force of numbers - numbers unified in purpose. Meanwhile, on the other side of town, sheer fear pushed through our weaker defenses. Not the weaker among us, but the worn down and myopic pleas for change that blinded us all to the need for comprehensive change.
Last Tuesday, I helped an elderly voter read in both in Spanish and English, the language of the proposition banning marriage "except between a man and a woman," here in Florida. She asked me to read the proposition. She professed to be a Democrat, and stated her desire to vote for everything democratic. A recent naturalized citizen of South American decent, she stood true to her principles. That was not in agreement with my values, but was certainly democracy in action. dividing families that live within its borders.
"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." - Our great - and very wise - president, Abraham Lincoln
I am not gay, but I have friends and relatives who are. While technically they are not blood relatives, they are part of my family just the same. I am a person who cannot separate human rights from civil rights, and believe that the government has neither the moral basis, nor the right to excercise its constitutionally granted authority to legislate moralism disguised as morality. No matter how popular the a misguided notion is, it is nevertheless still wrong:
"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg." - Our president, Abraham Lincoln
Abe Lincoln was Spartacus II!
An unflinching moral sensibility/ compass is not a personal belief, but rather a value that is in line with what the framers of our <living> constitution, who declared in another separate, but equally significant founding document: that we are endowed with certain ''...inalienable rights..." The fact that our Constitution is a living document, does not merely subject it to our whims, and 'changing' desires for conformity. It is living so that it can adapt to and defend itself against those who would put it asunder.
We cannot allow our nation to have been founded upon lofty ideals meant to become our national goals, only to replace one monarchy with a populist one that affirms a different but equally insidious injustice.
Chief among the arguments for the defense of all men and women, is the well-known but more often than not misappropriated living embodiment of democracy: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
'Four score and...' some years later, Abraham Lincoln was yet another who loved freedom more than he loved his country. This being so, he accepted the mission of striving for the perfection of our liberty. He encouraged his fellow citizens to defend most vigorously the timeless values of liberty and justice from potential corruptors who were and would soon be attacking both from within and from without. History instructs us that he did so at his own peril.
Lincoln was a Republican from the land of Obama - no, not Kenya or Hawaii - and insisted on several occasions a multitude of at once robust and 'enlightened' principles whose significance should not be lost on our present circumstances.
We should embrace our history, inclusive of both our successes and failures, so that we may see with increased clarity what lies ahead.
Abraham Lincoln's Chicago Funeral
We would do well to keep President Lincoln's words in mind, and intent in our hearts, if we are to succeed at our goal of perfecting our union, rather than striving through repeatedly pedestrian attempts, to make it (USA...USA!) so typically "ours":
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of
democracy."
"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."
"Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as a heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors."
"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of liberty."
"With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds."
and finally:
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."
This is what a humanist looks like...the real alpha couple
Brangelina and Apple Computer, Inc. united and each gave $100k each to fight Prop 8
Duh...
...or prepare to have them misappropriated shortly after you approve the usurping of the rights of others
This is what a raving bigot looks like
This is what a raving hypocrite looks like
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Emily Holleman
Rw005g
Don Rich
DJohn
ali b
Ron Powell
Salon.com
Comments
Without religious backwardness and total ignorance, there simply would be no need for propositions such as #8 in Cal. and #2 in Fl. There are certainly other types of ignorants among us, but religion ignorants are the primary opponents to equal rights here.
Religion is such a divisive force that in this issue, where one would logically, rationally expect members of minority groups to relate to the plight of gays, instead religion rears its ugly head once again and creates divisions even among minority groups. And based on what? Silly superstition.
Rated highly
Jim: I really enjoyed your post on AI. In that vein, no two people are a like, but should definitely be allowed to to like each other. I know of course, that that is not quite the issue the proponents of Prop 8 were offended by. Rather it is the institution of marriage whose 'sanctity' is being protected. Funny. I could swear that in the same states where it is not uncommon for different sex couples to have been married 2-3 times, bigots tout sanctity as a virtue of heterosexual unions. I say that if someone or the couple are involved in contribute meaningfully to our society, grant them the rights that should be accorded them in exchange for such service.
I don't hear anyone persecuting Karl Rove for his mere conception or even his divorce and subsequent remarriage. Hmmmm...
Let me make a few comments that you might or might not agree with, but I hope that people here on OS will at least think about. These comments are not directed at your post, but at something that bothers me and seems to constantly come up as a convenient whipping boy here on OS: the painting of religion with a broad brush that reflects every bit as much intolerance as the passing of those offensive initiatives that you rightly condemn.
Let me start with the ending: I agree that Prop. 8 and Prop.2 and a couple of other such legislative nonsense that passed last week are anathema to anyone who truly believes in human or civil rights. There is no argument between us there.
However, I find it offensive and unhelpful to aggregate all corporate, communal faith systems, like Christianity, for instance, in one great stereotyped lump and condemn that form of human activity to the tar pits. There are many religions in this nation; there are many forms of Christianity here as well. And there is almost NO agreement among those forms, called denominations, as to what is proper or orthodox doctrine or dogma.
There has been much harm and evil done in the name of Christianity and that sin has not been brought to light as it should have been, and there has been precious little admission of error, or acceptance of guilt for that matter, when, in the name of Christianity, evil has been inflicted on the innocent.
But the abuse of a religion by false prophets and self righteous leaders is an indictment of those people, and not necessarily an indictment of religion, organized or otherwise. Surely we understand by now that to stereotype all religious as evil or reactionary is as much an error in itself as any other form of discrimination.
The civil union/gay marriage issue is an argument over words. The Bible clearly says that marriage is between a man and a woman. It also says that there should be no divorce, that you should cut off your hand if you offend with it and a whole bunch of other culturally bound prescriptions that were meant to be applied to the time and society for which they were written.
Unfortunately, and probably stupidly, many conservative Christians assume the literal interpretation of the WORDS in the Bible to be universally applicable, both in space and in time. That is clearly, for me at least, an appropriation of an anachronistic application of a historical oddity for the purpose of supporting a current cultural ideology that is wrong. It happens all the time.
But the abuse of a religion, a philosophy, or an ideology does not indict the religion, the philosophy or the ideology. It does indict the one who abuses that religion, philosophy or ideology to achieve immoral ends.
Frankly, I think that marriage and/or civil unions should be removed from the church. There is nothing in the Bible that says anything about the propriety of being married in the church, synagogue or temple. Nothing. The early church had nothing to do with marriage. It was incorporated into the church after Constantine made Christianity a state religion as a way to further control the people.
I'm not even convinced that marriage should have to be “approved” by the state. I would leave it to two consenting adults to decide if they were or were not "married" or shared a "union." If they decided that they were, then they could simply register that fact with the local authorities as a matter of information and the legal advantages and obligations of that state of relationship would proceed from that registration.
All religion is not evil. All Christianity is not corrupt. And all Christians are not proponents of tyranny nor all they all ignorant Neandertals who can't find their way home in the dark.
That dog won't hunt.
Good post. Keep up the good work.
Monte
Purple, I think you've hit the nail on the head with this statement. If one thinks of gay people as no more exotic or frightening than a family member, prejudice has the potential to dissolve. When my best friend since kindergarten came out to me, I accepted it matter-of-factly as if she had said she had type O blood. My low-key acceptance of her gayness overwhelmed her as she was expecting a long, drawn-out discussion. As I explained to her, her being gay did not affect either the kindness, the jollity, or the good heart that dwelt within her then and still does today. The despair I feel at her being unable to marry the woman of her dreams goes hand in hand with my anger at her disenfranchisement from the country she loves.
I just attempted to post a response to your comments - a thorough one. My responses were then *lost*. I was promptly asked to log in again - only after I pulled up the blog page without having been asked to do so.
Sorry guys, I just had a writer's nightmare - nothing personal but I can't talk right now.
WT?, OS!
It won't help your toothache, but I have been having similar strange things happen here on OS. Sometimes I sign on, and everything is fine for a while, then I click to a new page and the site insists I sign in again. What's that about? Plus, I have been posting a comment and click on the "Post this comment" button and instead of posting it brings up another "Comments" window, but all the stuff I wrote is gone!! Sounds like that is what has happened to you. No fun.
Monte
Monte
The tears a lesbian partner cries when told she cannot see her hospitalized dying lover because she is not immediate family is far from their realm of conception. They have no idea the difficulties a gay partner incurs should his lover drops dead from AIDS without legal protection benefits. Not only do they have no idea but some are so entrenched in religion that they will never be enlightened because the underlying focus is, unfortunately, on sex.
Again, getting beyond the carnal is especially challenging when marriage in the gay mix intrinsically reinforces the emphasis on sex for bible bound heterosexuals. In fact, many African-Americans don't view gay marriage as a civil rights issue because skin color is tangible and sexuality is not.
Beyond the African-America's community widely noted homophobia, the black/white division within the gay community's larger fabric also deserves examination in response to Rick Lucke's comment, " Religion is such a divisive force that in this issue, where one would logically, rationally expect members of minority groups to relate to the plight of gays, instead religion rears its ugly head once again and creates divisions even among minority groups."
See Norman Kelley's "Once Again: The Niggers Did it on Prop.8."
"...intrinsically reinforces the emphasis on sex for bible bound heterosexuals."
The Bible is in some respect, an anthology on mankinds' obsession with tradition and the familiar to a certain extent. It is by now means though, the only hurdle in the race toward human progress - *we are.*Antropology in and of itself is a field of study worthy of obsession, to the extent that it advances mankind's goals of unqualified advancement, but at what cost is 'progress' achieved, for whom, and ultimately why?
As citizens of the world, we must not allow the profane to be eclipsed by the sacred, (or visa versa) if insodoing, we tacitly give bigotry a pass rooted only in the belief that long traditions are superior to new ones. Last time I checked though, 'same sex unions' are nothing new, and the Federalists lose here again.
Of course therein lies the beast. The dichotomy of a highly propelled human rights movement is that it shares its trajectory with all humanity - which is either along for the ride, eagerly on board, or just can't wait to get off the darned thing. Within the context of the course of human development, we are created equal, but with access to equality that differs greatly in accordance with the will of very few men who evidently have different ideas of what equality is or *should be*.
Sometimes we are indeed ahead of our times.
The same could be said for technology, environmental impact vs awareness/acknowledgement of what that impact is; war in a civilized society, imprisonment on false grounds within a democracy; et cetera, et cetera, et al.
We, the enablers are simultaneously observers and test-subjects in this grand experiment.
Check out Monte's post..."If" - Rudyard Kipling
While I believe some Christians, both black and white, are more open to an equality for all standard, others simply aren't. This, I'm afraid, presented the passage of a pro gay marriage measure its greatest challenge - religious foundations are hard to crack.
We're afforded many freedoms as Americans and ideally, the right to marry should be a legal entitlement for all. Let's face it, some will never be swayed but in order to achieve change, the doors to dialogue must be flung open.