A change is gonna come...

Recent court decisions overturning state bans on same-sex marriage are hastening the day when same-sex marriage will be legal across the country. I was reading a response to an article the other day in which the post said that the court should respect the votes of the majority of citizens in that state to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. I shuttered at the thought of the awful things people could do if everything was left to the will of the legislative and electoral process. Some rights are not given in laws, but inalienable. While I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say that the right to marry is inalienable, the right to equality is. Therefore, if a state wants to outlaw all legal unions - which would be absurd, but I'm making a point here - then that would be fine with me. But if the state allows two people to legally marry, then they have to allow another two people to legally marry (I won't get into polygymy and such, because the history there makes that issue much more complicated). There is absolutely no argument - legal or other - that anyone can make (except for religious, but that doesn't matter in our system of government) that would rationally determine that opposite sex people should be able to marry, but same-sex people should not. Further, marriage is a convenant and legal union between two people (and the state), and has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else. Therefore, the electoral process should have no determination on how two people decide they want to declare their partnership; whether that be choosing to remain unmarried, a civil union, or a religious ceremony.
The people who continue to disagree with same-sex marriage may have their reasons; and I don't want to say that all, or even most, of them are bad people - they're just wrong. They are not only fighting an uphill battle at this point, they're fighting a losing battle. And much like those who supported miscegenation laws before interracial marriage became legal, they will be proven to be on the wrong side of history. The day is coming, and it's coming quickly. But the odd thing is, there's nothing to fear. Legalizing same-sex marriage nationally will have absolutely no effect on opposite sex couples, but will have a major impact on same-sex couples and will finally give them the recognition that they deserve, rather than (ironically) making their unions and families unlawful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEM4VlnGNXU&feature=kp

I don't have a dream, I have a demand...

Today marks the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. That historic march, organized by legendary activist Bayard Rustin, and at which Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his historic "I Have a Dream" speech, was a landmark occasion in the history of civil rights in the United States. And while I certainly don't want to understate the importance of the event, many people use the March on Washington, and the ensuing passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, as evidence that we've "made it" with regard to racial equality.
But they're wrong. We've stagnated in our race relations. In fact, with the recent Supreme Court decision striking down section 5 of the voting Rights Act, and the current and inevitable future efforts of many to restrict the right to vote for many poor and minority citizens, we're actually moving backward. Those with ill intentions continue to play on racial fears and ignorance to push forward their agendas of white supremacy and economic monopolization. We still see gross differences between the opportunities of those born into affluent families versus those born into poor families; statistics show that little has changed when it comes to economic opportunity. There are gross disparities in education and access to vocational skill-building. And while many of these issues are tied to economic disparities, in many places in American society economic inequality has been intrinsically tied to racial inequality.
It is impossible to deny that there is a problem, when black people are hugely disproportionately represented in the ranks of those in poverty, those incarcerated, those as victims of violence, and many other metrics. We need to be honest about where we are in terms of the civil rights movement. We were moving forward in the 60s. We began slowing down in the 70s. We basically stopped in the 80s. We started arguing about the gains in the 90s. We regressed and pretended that inequality didn't exist in the 00s. And now we're moving backward in the 10s.
To turn things around will take honesty, openness, and effort. It can't be only black people that push for continued progress in the civil rights movement. We need equality for all people in this country and this world; immigrants, women, LBGTQ people, the poor, the sick, those from small towns and big cities, and everyone in between. Everyone is naturally equal; it is only because of ignorance, hate, and opportunism that our society has been twisted into believing that there are differences. Those who care need to keep caring and keep moving. Things will only happen if we make them happen.

Voting "rights"...

Do we live in a democracy? It's hard to know anymore. It's hard to know if we ever did. The definition of democracy is "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." Other definitions include terms like equality and rights. But it doesn't seem like the United States has lived up to any definition.
"In the beginning"...of this enterprise we call the United States, land-owning white men were the only people with any rights; and therefore the only people that could vote. This eventually changed to include all men. Then eventually it included land-owning former slaves. Then eventually it included women. Then eventually, with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it included EVERYONE. Well, in theory it included everyone.
Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, there has been a major effort made in several parts of the country to slowly deconstruct the bill. States have passed laws challenging the Voting Rights Act in an effort to limit the voting of racial and ethnic minorities, women, and immigrants. In addition, they attempted to discriminate against the poor, the elderly, and the infirmed. Basically, what some people in this country are trying to do is take us back to 1840 when only wealthy white men could vote.
What baffles me about this is not so much that politicians would support this; because unfortunately politicians don't seen the country (or the world) through the lens of humanity, but instead through he lens of politics. Therefore, if a politician in Alabama would benefit from the disenfranchisement of poor and minority citizens in their state, they're probably going to support it, regardless of the societal repercussions of that decision. It's not necessarily true that the individual is discriminatory (though it's not necessarily true that they're not, either), they're just opportunistic. But what they fail to realize is that their opportunism has real societal consequences that will live on much longer than their political careers. A mistrust or outright disgust for the electoral system is a consequence of that opportunism. And this is especially true among minorities and the poor.
While politicians may benefit from this narrowing of the political class, in the long run you're creating a society that hates politics and politicians, and could possibly (and will probably) one day rebel. Their attempts to keep white men on top will prove fruitless in the long run, because the reality is that old white men are dying every single day. And as the old guard of opportunistic politicians die out, we see the rise of younger politicians who, though they may still be opportunistic or even discriminatory, have to be much more pragmatic in a changing world.
Which brings us to the Supreme Courts decision to strike down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This specific provision basically makes mandatory a review of any changes to election laws made by states that have a history of discrimination in voting laws. Congress extended section 5 in both 1970 and 1975, and again in 1982, and lastly in 2006.
Therefore, despite antipathy among members of Congress, they were willing to uphold a piece of legislation that they determined was the bedrock of equality in voting. The Supreme Court decided otherwise. The problem with this decision is that even before the SCOTUS struck down section 5, we've seen an unrelenting effort (mostly by Republicans) to disenfranchise any and all people (or rather groups) they felt would vote Democrat. There have been requirements to buy government issued IDs (essentially a poll tax), limiting of voting times, closing of voting locations, confusing ballots, etc. All of these efforts are having the desired effect of those pushing them. They're creating confusion that leads to frustration, and eventually apathy toward the electoral process.
But we can't give in this easily. If we continue to be frustrated and allow those that would disenfranchise people to win, things are only going to get worse. We're going to see more than just voting rights go out the window; but rather our civil rights as well. It's time to get mad. It's time for people who don't agree with the direction we're heading to stand in front of the tank (so to speak), to set themselves on fire (so to speak), to chain themselves to the tree (so to speak), to refuse to leave the lunch counter (so to speak). Because right now we're playing right into the game of those that want to take away rights. They want us frustrated. They want us apathetic. They want us averse to the electoral and political process. It makes it a whole lot easier for wealthy white men to dominate if no one else wants to be part of the process.
So get angry. Protest. Start a march. Write your congressman and tell them to re-pass section 5 of the voting rights act with updated numbers of voter discrimination. It's time to act. Because it's better to change things now than to wait until the change will not be what anyone expects and will have the potential to create instability.

I can't believe this is not a bigger issue...

Look, I know that there are many religious conservatives that disagree with gay marriage. However, the fact that a vice presidential nominee has the balls to say something like what he said below is just galling. We live in a country that purports to support equality and provide equal protection under the law. Now this asshole comes along and says...nah.

Below is Paul Ryan's response in a discussion about marriage, to Focus on the Family president Jim Daly.

Ryan: It’s [marriage] the foundation for society and for family for thousands of years. First of all, Mitt Romney and I — I’ll just say it, it’s worth repeating — we believe marriage is between one man and one woman, that’s number one. Number two, you know where I come from we had one of those amendments in Wisconsin, I was a big supporter of it and we passed it like you say, where it’s put on the ballot it passes. The second point is, President Obama gave up defending the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, I mean, not only is this decision to abandon this law the wrong decision, it passed in a bipartisan manner, it is very troubling because it undermines not only traditional marriage but it contradicts our system of government. It’s not the president’s job to pick and choose which laws he likes. A Romney administration will protect traditional marriage and the rule of law and we will provide the Defense of Marriage Act the proper defense in the courts that it deserves.

Fuck you, Paul Ryan.

Let's reset...

I know I just talked about the Trayvon Martin murder yesterday, but I think that this topic warrants a continued discussion. About two months ago, I had written a length post about racial relations in this country, and the stagnation in the civil rights movement. I had written his, but then lost the text, and could not remember exactly what I wrote, and have not yet re-written it.
While I’m not going to re-write it now, I think the situation reveals a serious racial cleavage that we still have in this country. While the civil rights movement was transformative for this country, the so-called end of the civil rights movement fell short of anything resembling equality or the onset of some post-racial society. The civil rights movement opened the eyes of many people in this country, and did a lot to push forward equality for African-Americans and other minorities in this country; however, the mountaintop has not been reached. We do not live in a post-racial, equal society. We live in a society where civil rights have stagnated. And it’s this stagnation that further exacerbates the problems of racism, stereotyping, and profiling in this country; because people – mostly white people – feel that because the civil rights movement is “over”, then everything is peachy-keen. We’re done. We live in a country where racism, sexism, classism, sexual orientationism, and every other –ism are dead. BULLSHIT.
The civil rights movement was a great step forward, but we still have incredible discrimination in the country toward racial and ethnic minorities, toward women, and especially toward gay and lesbians. Rich, old, white men have held a stranglehold on this country for the last two and half centuries; and they’ve looked out almost exclusively for rich, old, white men. It’s time for these rich, old, white men to recognize that we no longer live in a country where they’re the only people that have anything to add to society. We live in a diverse society; diversity in intelligence, language, race, culture, gender, geography, sexual orientation, etc., and this diversity is a good thing. Their pushback is a Sisyphean task, and they will always be proven to be on the wrong side of history.

A simple issue made complicated

I was reading an article in the NY Times today that was asking New York kids what they thought about the legalization of gay marriage, and it got me to thinking that I haven't talked about this issue once since starting my blog.
I guess the reason I haven't addressed the issue is because I don't see there being much of an argument, since it's a simple civil rights issue. However, the fact that there have been some major changes that have been made in the last few years is worth taking note of.
First off, I must say that after reading the article I'm incredibly heartened by the fact that [it seems] as we move forward generations, we're exposed to more and more, and therefore are more open to difference and change, and kids actually embrace said change. Although, I think I would be remiss if I did not mention that kids in New York City are obviously going to be exposed to a lot more, and be much more open than kids anywhere else in the United States. That being said, I think the trend is universal, even if it's to a lesser degree.
Alright, onto the actual discussion of gay marriage, gay marriage vs. civil unions, DOD, anti-gay marriage amendment to the constitution, etc.
For me - and I will state "for me" from the outset, because I suppose I have a different perspective than a lot of people, because I have so many gay friends - the issue of gay marriage is a simple one. Marriage began as a religious ceremony, where two people pledged their unity before whatever god it was that they worshiped. The ceremony was, at that time, not recognized by "the state", because there was no state to recognize it; and even if there was, there was nothing especially important to recognize. So, on through the ages, marriage continued to be defined as a religious institution. However, as soon as "the state" began to recognize marriage, and provide rights for people based therein, it ceased to be a purely religious ceremony, and became a civil ceremony, and a civil union. So, when people don't support "gay marriage", but support civil unions, they're actually supporting gay marriage, because marriage, outside of a religious context, is actually just a civil union with a different name. Now, that doesn't mean that I support civil unions over marriage, because there is an important distinction that cannot be overlooked, and that the obvious legal ramifications of upholding a law that is creating a "separate but equal" situation.
Why do you think the anti-gay marriage amendment has not had more traction in congress, even when President Bush supported it, and he had a Republican senate and Republican house? The reason is that politicians know that a law like this would never survive scrutiny before the Supreme Court, because even conservative justices like Scalia and Thomas could not overlook the fact that this is a blatantly discriminatory policy. And by bringing the argument before the court, and losing on discriminatory grounds, the anti-gay marriage side would essentially be codifying the national right for gay couples to marry. This, in fact, will most likely end up being how gay marriage will become legal nationally; and then there may be a law that will follow.
I try to understand the other side's perspective on this issue, as I think that a lot of people have fear about what they are not exposed to, but while individuals - or even religious institutions - may not support the right of gay couples to wed, there is really no legal basis for this argument, and therefore I'm still at a loss for how states continue to uphold open discrimination. The anti-gay marriage advocates should relish this time, however, because the days of discriminating against gay couples who wish to marry are numbered; CT, IA, NH, VT, NY and the District have set the tone, and the rest of the states will start falling in line.