In my opinion, spending your life savings to back a proposition of any sorts is completely and utterly irresponsible. I know that it's their right to spend the money however they see fit, but with five kids and a California economy that is sinking, that is just plain stupid.
The 69% vote from African Americans for Prop 8 is kind of shocking. IMO, it's also hypocritical of African Americans to vote for it after decades of their own fight against inequality. I'll just leave it to the California Supreme Court's own words from their May decision to allow same-sex marriage:
"An individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
And as usual, Jon Stewart expertly highlights the hypocrisy of the Mormon Church's fight against same-sex marriage:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189782&title=i-now-denounce-you-chucklarry
Why can't people just let people live? If you don't approve of gay marriage, then don't get one and SHUT THE F*** UP.
--------
Well now you see why I prefer to discuss foreign policy issues. Sadly, the conflicts in the Middle East and Africa seem easier to comprehend than the bitter, emotional deadlocks we face on such social issues like gay marriage and abortion! But I appreciate your input M, and generally agree.
I too feel bad about the black voter reaction to gay marriage and whatnot. But despite being majority Democrat, most Christian blacks follow a fairly socially conservative version of the faith. There were a lot of "No on 8" radio ads narrated by an obviously black voice in order to maybe change their opinions, but to no avail. History seems to show that previously persecuted groups will generally not stick their necks out to assist other persecuted groups (especially when it could return them to persecuted status). And sadly, once persecuted groups obtain power, they may return the favor by persecuting their former abusers or others (Iraqi Shia being a recent example). That is probably what some xenophobes and white supremacist Americans fear about empowered blacks and the new Obama administration. But there were some positive examples, such as Northern Jews risking their lives to help Southern blacks in the Civil Rights struggle, and the Mandela-led reconciliation in South Africa. But unfortunately, it seems that persecution may just make minority groups more self-protective, even at the expense of others. Not to say that is happening with American blacks, but it's clear that many of them are not going out of their way to speak out for gays/immigrants/Muslims, but no more or less than other races I guess. It just depends on who become the new n*****s in our society: blacks, Indians, Poles, Irish, Italians, Chinese, Latinos, gays, Muslims. And unfortunately, the previous n*****s (after the mainstream decides to include them) often join the bandwagon to give the new n*****s a hard time.
Even with Obama, check out this link:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/20729974.html?location_refer=Nation
I guess it's more the fault of his campaign handlers than Obama himself, but he's the chief. They are so paranoid of the Arab-Muslim "slur" (so are "Baptist" and "British" slurs now too?), that they have gone to ludicrous lengths to "protect" Obama. Of all the hundreds of speeches he gave, he never ONCE said that Americans shouldn't be like that. He dissed McCain for not using email, but never said that it's ok to be Muslim, even if he isn't. But Obama just wanted to win, and had to neutralize this potential weakness, even if it meant failing to take a stand for what's right and insulting a subset of his supporters (Muslim Americans are heavily anti-GOP for obvious reasons). It does disappoint me and other liberals who believe that Obama could have shown more courage and inclusion, especially since he has criticized Bush for straining relations with the Muslim world and inciting backlash. As you said, isn't that hypocritical of a black man with a law degree, who should know a lot about injustice? But sorry to digress...
Funny Daily Show clip, thanks. Well, for the record only a few fringe Mormons practice polygamy, and I guess it's not totally mysogenistic - during their trek to Utah, many men died and the survivors felt obligated to care for the widows/orphans. Supposedly it's the same principle behind Muslim polygamy (many men died in wars and left their women in a bind, so other men picked up the slack). Not to say that I agree with it, but just a take on the history. There was an interesting documentary on Mormonism on PBS that my wife and I saw last month. I guess it went a few steps beyond the South Park parody haha. I couldn't really get my head around the concept that they believe we're all "celestial beings", and families were predestined to find each other on Earth, and then be together for eterninty in the celestial realm. Man, that must be truly hell if you have to live with your family forever! Maybe that partially explains why many Mormons take family very seriously and therefore feel strongly about perceived attacks on their "divine" family model.
Yes I agree with you about that family's spending. I didn't mention it to praise them, but rather to demonstrate how extreme some people's reaction to gay marriage can be. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they weren't manipulated into that decision by their church or "Yes on 8" minions. Those parents love their kids as much as the next family, and I guess they just felt that their savings, which could have been used to improve their kids' lives in many ways, was better spent as political influence. I guess to help shape a world where there are laws that better preserve their value system. I'm not saying it's sound thinking, but it's not like they're just jerks who want to pick on gays. Though I would question "activist religions" that would rather speak with their pocketbooks/lobbyists than humble deeds of love and charity. Thankfully we live in a "civil society" versus Congo or Iraq, where they settle their differences with bloodshed. But here we sometimes inflict sociopolitical violence on one another instead, which can be almost as hurtful.
Maybe pro-tolerance groups can't reach some people who have gone off the deep end, but it shouldn't have gotten to this point. Now pro-gay groups are protesting outside Mormon temples and such, which won't help anything. Shouldn't they know that some religious people crave nothing more than feeling righteously persecuted? Remember how bad it got with the Tom DeLay Congress and Terry Schiavo? Animosity just makes both sides want to circle the wagons and be less receptive to the other's views. Some people are truly homophobic, but others do mostly practice live and let live. However, those people's beliefs may compel them to want to "protect marriage" or other social standards. It's not good enough to them to go about their lives knowing that gay marriage is happening around them. I mean, would we sit idly by if we knew our next-door neighbor beat his wife and kids? I know it's not the same thing (and gay marriage is not a crime), but to the "Yes on 8" people, I guess they feel that it is their moral duty to take action and not just passively accept it, especially if people like Newsome keep flaunting it all over.
Same thing with abortion; they feel that a high crime is being committed and their conscience won't let them just tolerate it. Though the pro-life side may never accept anything less than "life begins at conception". At least with gay marriage, maybe in time the proponents can demonstrate that gay couples just want to mind their business, be happy, and don't have an agenda of spreading gayness. In fact, many preachers have said gay marriage is a good thing, because any sort of increase in monogamous commitment between two people in love strengthens family values and sends a good message in the community. Divorce and promiscuity are bigger threats to marriage than gay marriage is! So if traditionalists eventually lower their guard and feel comfortable that gays don't threaten heterosexual marriage, and don't want to brainwash their kids, then there's no problem, right? But that would require the pro-gay movement to maybe tone it down a notch, and not upset conservative sensibilities with flamboyant pride parades and such. That accentuates their differences, when really they should be striving to demonstrate humility, commonalities, and shared values.
Maybe living in CA we have a skewed sense of gay acceptance, since we are definitely on the more tolerant end of the spectrum (Prop 8 aside). Of course it's not like gays are getting lynched (at least not as often as blacks), but let's remember that public acceptance of homosexuality is not a given in America. Over half the states ban any sort of gay unions (like all of the South and Midwest). And "progressive" states like MI, WI, and OR also ban gay marriage. Only CT and MA have legal gay marriage, which is like 5% of America. Gays live pretty well in CA (not 100% equal, but who is?). I know they always have the right to ask for more, but let's be reasonable. Getting a black president elected was already a big step in 2008 - and blacks have been here from the start! Change is slow (especially social acceptance) and America might need more time with gay marriage.
But people often forget that it's a two-way street. If gays want more acceptance and equality, they need to do a much better job with PR and outreach to non-gays. Like half of Obama's campaign was about convincing America that he was one of us. Obama campaigners across the country "embedded" themselves in communities that might not have been very receptive to a black Democrat with a funny name. The locals came to like them, so they figured, "Well this guy is alright, and if he is so gung ho for Obama, maybe Obama is ok too." It's unfortunate that he had to go to such lengths, but at least he succeeded. Nothing breeds support for gay rights than non-gays having gay friends (or at least gays trying to reach out to non-gays and make a good impression).
No comments:
Post a Comment