Letters to the Editor
New Deal Democrat
Published Letters: 203 Editor's Choice: 43
-
@Ktdawg
[Read the article: Pam Spaulding for Glenn Greenwald: Straight sex-predator teachers, ENDA and paranoid fundamentalists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've read your posts, and am confused as to what your ultimate point is.
I'll see if I can address your concerns:
Religious exceptions: I'm not aware of any significant gay activist who's spoken out against religious exceptions. The only way the bill could possibly be passed is if it contained those exceptions. If it didn't, it would likely violate the First Amendment's injunction against state coercion of a religious institution.
The gay experience vs. those of other minorities: No two groups' experiences are ever going to be identical. Does that mean one group's experience is the only valid template?
Here's the question we should ask ourselves. Are gay people discriminated against? It's clear the answer is yes, historically. That bias has decreased a lot over the past 20 years or so, but there are definitely places you can be fired for being gay and for no other reason. There are documented cases.
Next, is it okay for gay people to be treated this way? I don't see how anyone could make the argument that they should be, given that we outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion and creed in 1964. The only way this argument could be made is if one believes that orientation is a choice. And there's no reputable researcher, scientist, or psychologist who believes that sexual orientation is a simple matter of choice - at least in the facile way the religious right attempts to frame the debate (in the same way I might choose to have turkey instead of beef for dinner).
In fact, all the research done so far suggests that sexual orientation is a complex mix of genetics and environment, one for which no one has cracked the code (assuming that's even possible). On what basis, therefore, is discrimination okay?
-
Exception language
[Read the article: Pam Spaulding for Glenn Greenwald: Straight sex-predator teachers, ENDA and paranoid fundamentalists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ktwdawg - I'm not familiar with either the specific language of this bill or the nuances of how similar measures have been enacted, so someone with more legal knowledge will have to comment on that.
Keep in mind, however, that even the most watery provisions would have an effect. Just for argument, let's say every publicly held company would have to comply. (I'm betting the language is stronger than that.) Had it been in place years ago, that alone would have made the firing of the Cracker Barrel employee - a documented case - illegal, and would force Exxon/Mobil, one of the few large corporations to tacitly admit that it still practices discrimination, to adopt a non-discrimination policy.
Yes, it gets trickier when you're looking at non-profits and small companies, but I'm sure there's precedent for all this.
-
Obama's dilemma
[Read the article: Pam Spaulding for Glenn Greenwald: Obama zapped by the third rail of black homophobia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A declaration by Obama at these concerts condemning homophobia would only work if the performers bought into it, and that's anything but a given considering... well... their vehement homophobia. It seems to me there's a lot more potential for it to backfire and make the candidate look foolish.
I'm sympathetic to Obama's predicament here. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he has any leverage with these people, this would be the time to use it.
Unfortunately, this is a textbook example of how different minority groups are easily divided and conquered by the right.
-
@andycher
[Read the article: Pam Spaulding for Glenn Greenwald: "For the Bible Tells Me So"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Much as I'm not a fan of people hurling scriptural quotes at each other, your ignorance of the New Testament can't go unchallenged.
Among other items in the New Testamant that are, to say the least, out of sync with modern notions of morality: an endorsement of slavery, and a clear preference for celibacy over marriage.
In the case of the former, Paul's exhortation that slaves not rise up against their masters was used extensively to defend slavery in the 19th century. In the case of the latter, when did you ever hear a minister urging people toward lifelong celibacy?
It appears we've fallen farther than you thought.
-
The options
[Read the article: Chris Floyd for Glenn Greenwald: Dissent or disgrace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's face it: there aren't many available to those of us who aren't well-heeled and well-connected.
One we do have, however, is to loudly and unceasingly disparage any Democratic officeholder or candidate who allies him/herself with the evisceration of the Constitution via warrantless wiretaps, the suspension of habeas corpus, etc., and - even more importantly - to withhold our votes from those Democrats if necessary.
We can't be afraid to castigate the sellouts, even in "polite" company. Specifically, I mean that the speaking out must happen in the company of fellow liberals who may be inclined to support pusillanimous Democrat X against odious Republican Y. Personally, I've already offended a number of "centrist" Democrats in my social circle by denouncing various politicians. This is a small price to pay, of course, but one people are often reluctant to do because of fear of social ostracism.
You're right, Chris. Lots of things are negotiable in politics, but not the Constitution. It's the bright line beyond which we tread at our peril.