Letters to the Editor
-
QN
That you would attack a politician willing to publicly admit that,
" I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided."
shows just how unrealistic your perspective on the issue is. He's saying that he is willing to suppress his personal beliefs for those of the nation and you give him absolutely no credit, no concession on your part that you are willing to work together on this. Hard-liners will always be marginalized for their unwillingness to compromise- you find yourself in the company of FDR and GWB when you say 'We can deal, but only if you come around to see it my way'.
As for the word itself I could give two sh*ts what you call it. But obviously alot of people do care about the word- let us investigate why: Marriage is a social construct created as a natural contract- the woman was property to be paid for in dowry and the arrangement was almost always political. True Love is a fairly recent concept, one that has nothing to do with the origins of marriage. Eventually these contracts were validated by THE CHURCH, as all things western were at one time or another. The venue remained, however, and carried over to the New World.
Talk about tradition, talk about 'ownership' of the term, and you will lose. Talk about rights and equality, and your answer will be civil unions- all the rights and equality therein. 'Seperate but Equal' being overturned on the judicial ruling that 'Seperate is inherently unequal' applied well to public education- but the framework doesn't carry over so easily to marriage. First of all, there is no social advancement tied to marriage like there is to education- benefits promised are benefits received. I won't say that 'married status' doesn't carry social import, or factor into advancement, but the obstacle there will be your sexuality, not your marriage license.
-
Plate of Crow, Table for One Please
I'd like to apologize for my previous posting criticizing the editors of this LW page. I forgot that I posted that other letter to Video Dog, where it sits undisturbed. My bad.
-
Barack
Obama has two years experience in the US Senate, and nearly a decade of experience in one of the toughest political environments in the country.
During that time, he took tough stances on issues that included the minimum wage, abortion, gun control, earned-income tax credits for the poor, embryonic stem cell research, racial profiling, ethics reform, and against tax breaks for businesses.
For those who'd actually care to look things up, there's a story from the AP today--linked on the Salon site!--about Obama's Illinois experience.
People who think he has no "experience" or that he's "just a pretty face" or "hasn't take positions on issues" haven't bothered to do their homework. Or they've another agenda.
Personally, I'd prefer Barack to be VP in a second Gore bid, but short of that, he's the best candidate that we have this go-round.
-
Handing 2008 to the GOP
Salon readers want to hope that Americans vote for the good guy, because it's just too painful to acknowledge what really happens in the voting booth. Decency, intelligence, worldliness and passion haven't had anything to do with the last two elections; America got what it was most "comfortable" with. There is just too big a bloc of Americans who aren't particularly Democrat or Republican; they just want the familiar, the affable, the one-of-us, and that is how a laughable nothing like Bush even rose to candidacy in 2000.
It is also what truly scares me about the 2008 election. All the GOP has to do is put up a white guy, any guy, who seems even remotely more in touch with reality than Bush, and that guy will win against any woman or black, voted in by that same group that we want to pretend doesn't exist. It makes me sick, but there it is.
-
K
That you would characterize my unwillingness to support a candidate for President who doesn't believe in the equality of all people as an "attack" fails to address the obvious: either you're equal or you're not.
He's saying that he is willing to suppress his personal beliefs for those of the nation...
No, he's not. He's saying:
"I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided."
Why would an educated, progressive African-American civil rights attorney in the year 2007 have to remain open to some "possibility" that denying equality to all people is "misguided"? He's saying that he sees no problem with denying the humanity of some, pending a persuasive argument to the contrary. The persuasive argument already exists: all people are equal.
And Obama's even wrong about what he doesn't support; there's no such thing as "gay marriage". Marriage is marriage. What Obama opposes is marriage equality.
Talk about tradition, talk about 'ownership' of the term, and you will lose.
Good thing I'm doing the opposite, then, I guess. I don't care about "tradition" and I don't care who thinks they own what words. My point is that the bigots don't own marriage. Religion doesn't own marriage. And as long as the state owns marriage -- and it always will -- it must be open to all. Because all people are equal.
First of all, there is no social advancement tied to marriage like there is to education- benefits promised are benefits received.
This is so obviously wrong as to be mind-boggling. Of course, there is social advancement tied to marriage. That, of course, is the entire point of marriage. The over one thousand rights that marriage confers are entirely about a certain class of coupled people (the married) having more rights than any other type of coupled people. If it has no social significance, why do the bigots insist that marriage define everything from when and with whom you get to have sex to the validity of any given family? Quick, someone tell all those generations of "unwed mothers" that they were stigmatized for nothing.
Rightly or wrongly, the institution of marriage is all about social advancement. But who cares? We don't dole out equality based on how the person whose equality is recognized will benefit. We recognize equality because all people are equal.
If Barack Obama can't figure that out, I can't support his candidacy.