wasn't it just a month or so ago that the NAACP or some similar group was rallying against The Amendment -- on the grounds that it is a civil rights issue, and that if we enshrine Who's Allowed To Marry Whom in a constitutional amendment we'll be one step back closer to the anti-miscegenation laws we only got rid of in some states as late as the 1970's?
left hand, meet right hand. y'all should keep an eye on what each other is doing.
left hand, meet right hand. y'all should keep an eye on what each other is doing.
Do you expect all black people to come to a concensus on this issue (or any other, for that matter)? They aren't a monolithic group. They have opinions just as diverse as anyone else.
Heaven forbid ubiquitous social strife be rationed! It's either all-or-nothing, evidently.
I can't say I'm surprised to hear that. I won't be quite so cynical to say that there's a definite root in not wanting to have their lobbying "thunder" stolen; I doubt they're that spiteful. Regardless, it makes a definite gash in the side of those who wish to demonize people who dislike particular minority groups. I found the out-of-wedlock figure amusing- thanks for that. :)
As far as Medicare going broke is concerned: That, and everything else as long as we have someone named after a type of vegetation in la maison blanche. As a member of the group dubbed "America's Future," pardon my penchant for referring to Social Security and Medicare in a persistently-derisive light.
I'm sure President Hugo "Celery" Thompson in 2016 will gladly forgive your saying that.
But you know he's going to get re-elected anyway right? Because he's the best defense we have agin terr'ists an' evil-doers, an' he fights on the side of Gawwwd.
Besides, the other guy is a liberal who'll raise taxes by 900 billion dollars an' he protested agin the war right alongside Jane Fonda an' he don't got a clue how to pertect us agin' terr'ists. I know 'cuz the teevee ads that the President spent $200 million on say so.
(You know the Kerry campaign is almost out of money, right? And Dubya of course is getting all kinds of cash thrown at him by... class? Let's not always see the same hands here. That's right, huge corporations! :::siiiiiighhhh:::)
Dubya's dad had a shitload of cash too, and he lost. Granted that Kerry is not nearly as charismatic as Clinton was, but when even my 70-year-old lifelong Republican voted-for-Nixon-twice parents living in Mississippi are seriously wavering...something's up. I won't be giving up on unseating Bush yet.
Which, for me, only served to double what I had to pay in. Yeah, he sure won MY vote that time. Mmmhmm. ::nod::
Oh, let's all compare our suffering and get all "I've suffered more than you!" on each other. This has directly to do with something that is a recurrent problem in the black community: their version of homophobia, which is culturally different than white homophobia but has the same result. It also has a lot to do with scapegoating and a total misunderstanding of homosexuality. As it was pointed out in the article, part of the problem is that people look on homosexuality as a choice. It's not.
The point about the pastors ignoring the out-of-wedlock birthrate among the black community is well-taken. There are a number of factors that contribute to the statistics showing minorities are overwhelmed with single-parent households with a female as the head. I've studied those factors in school and observed them on the streets of New Orleans, and I will tell you in my experience that homosexuality is NOT one of those factors.
Substance abuse, the drug trade, gang activity, the attenuated lifespan of low-income minority males, cultural and lifestyle influences that endorse fathering as many children as possible as proof of manhood without providing any support for the children or their mothers; all these figure in, but I don't have any evidence that homosexuality is part of that whole "breakdown of the family" in minority communities. Or in any other damn community for that matter.
This is terrible shortsightedness on the part of these ministers, who are basing this protest on their own fears and on the few verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality. The Bible also condemns eating shrimp and pork, but somehow nobody gets on their high horse trying to ban ham and shrimp po-boys. "Shrimp eaters are UNNATURAL! Ham sandwiches are PERVERTED!"
I think it's a common problem in America - let's call it "that's-not-the-hot-issue-dammit-itis." People are all verklempt over Janet's boob and gay weddings, and come on already, there are a LOT of more important issues. But of course, those would actually take some effort to try to solve, so we're gonna flail about this one instead.
I sometimes think that some people are such conservative Republicans that Bush could go out on the street, shoot small children, have it aired live on national tv and people would still vote for him.
It's very depressing.
"carefully husbanded by the Clinton administration?" what a joke. Clinton was a huge advocate of trying to find a solution for the inevitable demise of social security and medicare. He had 3 plans that he was constantly exploring throughout his 2 terms, 1. Raise taxes (a democratic favororite), 2. Cut benefits, 3. Invest privately. He was actively pursuing the 3rd option when all hell broke loose with the Lewinsky scandal. This would have been probably just the thing he needed to actually have a legacy and not a mockery. If he hadn't been "distracted" I really have no doubts that all this would have already been resolved.
Bush came into office and offered a perscription drug benefit which will eliminate the burdon on senior citizens making under 20k per year. The downside is that it steps up the drain on the rest of the SSI / Medicare system. Like everything else, the republicans look at, and solve 1 thing at a time while the democrat answer is that if you can't fix everything at once, don't fix anything at all.
I wonder how much of the burdon on the system would be lifted if we stopped offereing SSI and medicare to illegal immigrants through forged documents.
I'm looking forward to seeing Bush work this out in his second term. Which I don't really doubt that we'll be seeing.
This would have been probably just the thing he needed to actually have a legacy and not a mockery. If he hadn't been "distracted" I really have no doubts that all this would have already been resolved.
If the Republican witch hunters had heeded the polls and done what over half of the American public wanted them to do (leave Bubba the hell alone and get on with the business we hired them to take care of), it'd have gotten done. Instead we have this legacy to deal with. Thanks Republicans!
I'm not certain where this refusal to share the sandbox is coming from, but it's getting tiresome.
I would say homosexual "suffering" is as much as any racial group in the U.S., if not more. This may not have been the case during slavery, but I highly doubt the Reverend lived through that.
I would have to disagree as I don't see homosexuals being watered down with firehoses and having dogs sicked on them for trying to associate with hetrosexual people.
The whole thing should be a state issue, but in the end if the states refuse to enforce the law (ie: San Francisco, California), then the Federal government does need to step in and take action, even if it ends up having to be an ammendment.
Beautiful. I love your views and how eloquently and simply you put them. I'm so glad I friended you! All I can think of to say is: what took me so long?
Aw, now ya went and embarrassed me!
Loving v. VA wasn't THAT long ago, and there are still plenty of people who think interracial marriages are just as much of an "abomination". These people need to pull their heads out of their asses. I don't understand why government is in the marriage business in the first place, or why "religious" institutions want to be in any way affiliated with what passes for "holy matrimony" today.
2004-03-24 03:09 am (UTC)
Re: How quickly we forget...
Change is scary and must be fought. It's easier to focus on this than to address the actual problems of families.
Well written and well put. The one thing I'd add to the issue about sharing credibility for suffering is that it's all a matter of perspective. If any single group is going to try to get the MOST attention for their suffering, they can't credit the suffering of anyone else. If they do, they suddenly don't look so bad and fade back into the gray background of the masses. So, instead, the groups perceive they must remain fractured in order to maintain the best chance of getting the most attention.
As for the stuff about Bush, I again agree. My main thoughts on him these days are significant sadness that he's made the choices he has and a chilling dread that he'll be in charge again for the next term. It's quite interesting to me to note that none of the Republicans have even touched the idea that, if we quit fucking around with other countries, maybe they wouldn't be so interested in terrorism to get us to go away. Heaven forbid that any of this mess is OUR fault....
2004-03-24 12:39 pm (UTC)
Re: All About Perspective
That kind of zero sum thinking doesn't do anyone any favors, but yeah, there is a lot of truth to it. I don't know how we get past it.
The notion of him being in charge again is indeed chilling. There are Supreme Court Justices hanging by a thread, and Sandra Day O'Connor delayed her retirement to get through this presidency....