I have a hard time understanding how Americans can come together to transcend bigotry and ideology by electing Barack Obama as President, and on the same day vote to deny equal rights to gay couples. It doesn't make sense. By voting Yes on Proposition 8 (to ban gay marriage) Americans in Florida, Arizona, and California have voted to legalize prejudice. It seems like a step backwards.I have heard that proponents of Prop 8 illegally used images of Obama in their ads and fliers. Obama does not support Prop. 8. Also in California many Catholic churches, Evangelicals, the Christian Coalition and Dobson's Focus on the Family were telling their congregations to vote Yes on Prop 8. According to the tax code rule, religious organizations are not allowed to intervene in political campaigns (See the IRS 501c3). They should lose their tax exempt status for violating the tax code rule, and discriminating against gays.
Passing this legislation means that a majority of voters have denied a minority of the population their civil rights. That's not fair. We have a government of judges and courts to protect equality. Hopefully the California Supreme Court will strike down Prop 8.
I believe that electing Obama is a great first step toward racial harmony in America, and I hope he can lead us toward a more inclusive society in general.
![Irv Muchnick, Concussion Inc. [The Only Honest Reporting on Martin vs Villa/SLAPP]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjPD2coV7RQATuCUf-3rw1R677yxUImhkVfkwctN91m7yfi3nNdoiPeWor3ZFheb8-GpJgZmYhLB110qFaj3cJ-Chizn5_-t0OCc58nBiQZ8ExJNvSonqN7DCj2ETWDi4Wy0_OObaC3JgJ5_i8VJtUJ3RFDUDQf0VyiSghcV4xshIX6yCIdMs4SUh6t=s220)
![[Reneged] City Solicitor Kloiber Bans Cousin Jeffrey Anthony Defamation & Harassment of Villas](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjrGZtm_TCRriA3DHGTVASeEr_XIZD_pQqaf-fCuaf2k-ApQAze7ZAeVU-I6gHcE8Tt6WXadtqw_hAOHjaJe11PiUx2MPPSCMN-MC5RBeCcjKX_DjAhw7IS0eWcKGimIJ9oImiqAkx3jw5l6mT-LnUEQ3U2JmCZyik1BNyiLbXmHr-MSBjt3fMiO6k4=s310)
![[Reneged] Villa Defense Witness: "Judge" Anthony](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilEA5zRbHJ2QZAT9qDc0rbK8z4aAEOKvk_sodBrrul56cu0MeXGjYPqfiUm1BuTWqDQakCDdKpcM6ozIrgcLLpHcBTlXWl5yC2ODubS5_xHNDtieJnNg-ucIejp3eZORHRROmETUoFGKiW/s220/10653495_508198589366170_7055316366826361693_n.jpg)
24 comments:
We need gay marriage rights for all. Not civil unions. Civil unions smack of "separate but equal" and separate is never equal.
The passing of proposition 8 is the first time in U.S. history where rights have been removed, as many couples' marriages were nullified by the state.
If we had put civil rights for African-Americans to a popular vote in the 1960s, it would have been voted down, too.
Sometimes, as in civil rights, our courts must (and do) intercede and overrule the popular "thinking."
I'm positive Proposition 8 will be rectified by the courts.
But the indignity against gay people remains.
Imagine giving a minority group the right to vote ... and then taking it back.
That's what has happened here with Proposition 8.
Weird that it happened in ... California?
I think that, in time, USA will succed to get out of this too. On November 4th, America demonstrated its ability to turn a corner and I'm sure it will be like this for the next challenges of our century.
The prop-8 appearent success (still a part of votes has to be counted) it's undoubtly the consequence of a 8 year Bush administration. It will take a bit of time to change these effects. But, as I said, in time you will succeed.
I agree BV, civil rights should not be decided by popular "thinking",which can be really thoughtless. But if more states allow same sex marriages, and if the courts strike down Prop 8, then maybe the govt. will finally give gays equal rights, just like when women were finally given the right to vote. Hope it doesn't take too long.
Hi foo foo, hope to see you at our Chen Arts event this evening!
CHARGE!
Hi Katie Bee. Is this issue getting a lot of attention at college?
Hi foo foo, hope to see you at our Chen Arts event this evening! CHARGE!
I shall be there, darling, biggest turnout to date I hear we're anticipating :) CHARGE!
WOW, "Lehigh Valley Somebody" is reaching people INTERNATIONALLY! A gal (cristi) from Romania commented last article and (nickelgreen) from Italy this one! I know LV Somebody is ranked among the Top 20 Most Influential Political Blogs in Pennsylvania at BlogNet News (BNN), what's next, Top 20 @ WNN, WorldNet News!!!!
" ... in time you will succeed." -nickelgreen
Hi nickelgreen, thanks, and welcome. It's really cool to see "Yes We Can" being embraced around the world. It's a much better mantra than "Joe The Plumber" or "Drill Baby Drill," wouldn't you agree :)
Hi readers, Mrs. Dottie and I have just rejected a homophobic and uninformed comment from an anonymous writer and denied it access beyond our "velvet rope." This person does not qualify for the pleasure of our company here, so, buh-bye now ;)
Hi Bill, nice to meet you (and nice to meet you mrs dottie too...)
"Yes we can" motto was quite adopted by our Democratic Party leader Veltroni (italianized into "si può fare") but, alas as you see from international newspaper, it didn't catch italians imagination which remain stuck with Berlusconi ridiculous behaviour (I apologize for his behaviour and, on occasions like these, I feel very ashamed to be an italian).
I don't like too much censorship of negative or even insulting comments by some people (unless they're reiterated or really really out fo the line or strongly offensive, read: trolls). These people help me remind that halting the guard is not such a wise thing to do ever. And, further more, it helps those people to strongly look as complete jerks to others.
Anyway, I'm glad US took a chance to take a further step in the name of civil progress and general change. Maybe this financial crisis helped focus people on more important and immediate issues.
Very interesting discussion. Rather than focusing on the issue at hand, I thought to explore the church/state separation matter more closely. Check out http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf for more info.
Although a church is absolutely prohibited from endorsing or contributing to a political CANDIDATE, this prohibition "is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of churches or religious organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals". "Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy." (and this is the good part)
"However, for their organizations to remain tax exempt under IRC section 501(c)(3), religious leaders CANNOT MAKE PARTISAN COMMENTS IN OFFICIAL ORGANIZATION PUBLICATIONS OR AT OFFICIAL CHURCH FUNCTIONS."
The IRS goes on to encourage religious leaders who wish to express themselves in this way to always indicate that their comments are "personal and not intended to represent the views of the organization."
So how do those who violated their public trust get called into accountability?
At the risk of being non-PC, is it fair to argue that "civil unions" are separate but equal, and thus flawed, without recognizing that gays seek the same "separate but equal" status: They want "equal" rights for same-sex marriage but voluntarily maintain a "separate" status by marrying one of the same gender.
My understanding is that civil unions in California bestow the same rights and privileges as marriage.
I agree with an earlier comment that in guarding civil rights, Courts will prevail over majority opinion (not always though, ask a Japanese-American living in California after Peal Harbor). That's another reason it was so vital for an Obama victory.
Hi, thanks for thoughtful comments.
Nickelgreen, nice to meet you. I am of Italian descent, and (Bill Villa,my hubby) is part Italian too.
Hi Nolan, thanks for your comment.
I'll check out that link.
Bob Jr, I don't think gays are seeking a separate but equal status because they marry the same gender. A polygamist marries more than one woman,isn't that seeking to be separate from traditional marriage too?
"I don't like too much censorship of negative or even insulting comments by some people (unless they're reiterated or really really out fo the line or strongly offensive, read: trolls)."
We're with you on this, nickelgreen. To explain, Mrs. Dottie and I had reason to believe the comment we rejected this morning came from a troll who was just looking to stir things up for no [legitimate] purpose other than to provoke and annoy. Hence the rejection.
My best qualities come from my Italian side.
That's an interesting perspective, Bob Jr.
Although I'm in favor of gay people having the right to "marry" a same sex partner, sometimes I think they'd be able to get to equal rights land much faster if they'd just call it something other than "marriage." Although a majority of Americans are in favor of gay couples having all the same rights as heterosexual couples, many obviously still rebel at the concept of calling a gay union a "marriage." On the other hand, I can certainly understand why two gay people in love would want to be "married" and not "civil unionized." I know what I'd like to see here, and that would be heterosexual couples not thinking they own the trademark on the word "marriage," but I know it's not that simple ...
It's interesting that when gay people want to marry, marriage is deemed a "sacred" thing. If it's so sacred these days why are American divorce rates so high? It may sound unromantic, but marriage is essentially a contract. If Leona Helmsley can leave millions in a trust for her dog and THAT is OK with the court then there has to be hope for gay marriage.
Sorry if I got a little off-base there! I don't know what made me think of that old bat. :)
Excellent Point, Sarina! And your Queen of Mean analogy makes perfect (and on-topic) sense to me. I imagine Leona's pooch heir will be paying higher taxes under President Obama, nice doggie, thanks for spreading Leona's wealth around!
"So how do those who violated their public trust get called into accountability?"
Bulls-eye, Nolan, this is the pivotal question isn't it ...
Regarding marriage being "sacred," what about all that promiscuous heterosexual marriage ADULTERY? 50% of straight married men, and 30% of straight married women > CHEAT on their mate. Jesus, please don't let the gays give marriage a bad name.
"I agree BV" -Mrs. Dottie
Now there's the key to a good marriage :) oh I'm kidding, I (almost) always agree with Mrs. D, too.
Gotta Run. Chen Arts Group Meeting Tonite. CHARGE!
Dottie,
Here in CollegeLand we've been talking about a lot of issues surrounding the election and the ones that get the most attention are thus: 1-Barack as a post-baby boomer without a cold-war mentality that could actually bring a lot of progress to political discourse and 2- Prop 8. A couple of my professors are in committed civil unions or whatever they prefer to call the relationship, and tried very hard not to let on that they were visibly bummed out at the passing of the proposition.
AU in particular is rated among the most "gay friendly" colleges in the US and has a very active GLBT club - I'm sure they have a lot to say on the matter but I haven't attended any discussions on account of my workload.
That said, people aren't up in arms about it. I think that everyone's so exhausted from the election that they want to rest up for a couple weeks before they reactivate and put Obama's feet to the fire, so to say, about social issues.
" ... people aren't up in arms about it." -KB
Typically, people don't care about injustice unless or until it happens to them or someone they care about.
And even then, most people won't want to "take a side."
This can make fighting injustice a lonely battle.
Thank God for fighters. And for our U.S. courts.
Most of the time, things are made right.
"Typically, people don't care about injustice unless or until it happens to them or someone they care about."
This is sadly true, in general.
Speaking of our U.S. courts making things right, or, keeping them right:
On November 6, the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied and rejected all appeals filed by the homicidal drunk driver who killed my first born and only daughter Sheena on her 25th birthday in 2006.
According to the appeals, it seems this criminal defendant didn't think he should have gotten such a stiff prison sentence for killing Sheena, and, he also felt that Sheena's family, and not he, should have to pay the large and outstanding medical bills Sheena ran up, dying in the very expensive neuro/trauma intensive care unit at Lehigh Valley Hospital, the result of him crashing (airborne) into a tree at 85+ mph, on a 35 mph residential neighborhood street, with Sheena in the front passenger seat screaming in terror ... afraid she was going to die.
All of the ambitious and courageous sentencing and restitution rulings handed down by Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas Judge Robert Steinberg were affirmed (upheld) by the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
Don't expect to read about this Pennsylvania Superior Court decision of much local interest in our hometown "newspaper," The Morning Call. Sheena's killer is the son of an attorney whose law firm has represented The Morning Call for many years.
Post a Comment