2190Re: Wash. initiative nonesense
- Feb 8, 2007Ram,
Thanks for a thoughtful follow up to the issue here. I think in some
places younger generations are more charged on some issues than
others areas of teh nation. In WI last year colleges were bursting
with energy and votes on the marriage amendment. I also understand
that gay acceptance has reached such a level that it all is just
taken for granted. That can be a good thing. But rights given are
also rights than can be taken away.
Black America has the civil rights they rightfully enjoy because so
many Americans of all colors fought together, and in some cases died,
to see those rights enacted into law. When we honor the life of Dr.
King his words need to be a reminder to all of us, black and white,
that the work for civil rights are not yet complete in our country.
Martin Luther King said "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
Today the great fight for civil rights is with those pressing to end
discrimination against gay America. I have no doubt that if Dr. King
were living today he would give voice to ending this hatred and
discrimination. I am sure he would understand that only bigotry
drives the "don't ask, don't tell " policy that keeps qualified and
skilled people from openly serving in the armed forces. I am
convinced that he would advocate for the equal treatment of gay
people in relation to marriage. And I am utterly convinced that King
would have firm words for those within the African-American community
that do not understand their role, duty, and responsibility to fight
today for others in securing civil rights. (The vote in African-
American sections of Milwaukee was troubling on the marriage
amendment.) King would not be one of those who would pull the ladder
up until everyone had made it to the `promised land' of full civil
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" was not just a
phrase for another era, another fight. It is a truism that all need
to be mindful of as we continue to secure a better and more just
--- In email@example.com, "Ram Lau" <ramlau@...> wrote:
> The whole gay rights movement is a non-issue to my generation. Keep
> mind that any given generation's conservatives are more liberal than
> the previous generations. For example, my guess is that even the
> majority of conservatives don't believe in lynching blacks anymore.
> Let me point out that it was then-Senator George Allen (R-VA) who
> co-sponspored an anti-lynching bill back in 2004.
> Anyway, it appears to me the "Plessy v. Ferguson" days of the gay
> rights movement are pretty much over. However, there was a
> half-century gap between 1896 and 1954, when the Brown v. Board of
> Education case finally came up. In this day and age, I'm optimistic
> see that the episode takes a lot less time to come full circle. The
> conditions of the gays in 2007 is not nearly as bleak as the plight
> the blacks a century ago.
> So where do the presidential candidates stand on the issue in 2008?
> the Democratic side, most of the mainstream candidates are at least
> for civil unions, if not same sex marriage. That's where the country
> is at the moment. Giuliani is also for civil unions, and McCain
> to be for some sort of limited civil unions:
> As Media Matters noted, on the November 19 broadcast of This Week,
> McCain denied both that he was "for" civil unions and that he was
> "against" them. Host George Stephanopoulos specifically asked
> "Are you against civil unions for gay couples?" to which McCain
> responded: "No, I am not." Seconds later, however, Stephanopoulos
> asked: "So you're for civil unions?" to which McCain
> McCain said that he instead "believe[d] that people ought to be able
> to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways
> people who have relationships can enter into."
> McCain was a respectable candidate in 2000. He was.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Richard Kelly"
> <richwkelly@> wrote:
> > So which of the many Democrats already running for President
> > (in Feb. of 2007, by the way) will take up the cause? Which
> > one will see the great wisdom of said proposal, to punish
> > and penalize the majority of voters to make a point. As
> > for these various remarks on so many marriages not being
> > perfect, your argument really is with human nature, the
> > idea that perverse love is somehow purer, nobler, is just
> > so much hogwash.
> > Richard Kelly
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>