All men may be created equal, but not all men have equal rights.
The ideology of our founding fathers was based on the premise that "all men are created equal," as so written in the Declaration of Independence. Why then, have we not learned from our mistakes?
Prejudice, discrimination and hypocrisy have long challenged the principles that our forefathers put forth as the moral ground upon which this country was founded. And while battles have been fought and won to retain the ideology of equality and our inalienable rights as human beings, for each mountain conquered yet another has formed alongside.
In an exaggerated and misguided sense of purpose, we afford fellow Americans equal rights based on what and whom we deem worthy.
Not so long ago, many Americans were deemed unworthy of, and stripped of their inalienable rights as human beings. Founded upon personal opinion, corrupt morals, ethics and ignorance, we made decisions for others on how they could or could not live their lives - and how they could live amongst the rest of us - predicated on our rigid societal guidelines and mandates that one-size-should-fit-all.
In America not so long ago: - Women could not vote. - African Americans lived a life of severe limitation based on the prejudice and ignorance of their fellow man - were refused the most basic of human rights, liberties, and the dignity of all free peoples. - It was illegal in many states for interracial couples to marry.
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." (U.S. Supreme Court, Loving v. Virginia, 1967).
In a recent interview on Larry King Live, when asked if you supported gay marriage, your reply was that you did not. While you buffered this by saying that gay and lesbian couples should enjoy many of the same benefits to which married couples are privy, you stopped short of saying that you supported same sex marriage. How then, are all men created equal?
History has shown that our shameful discrimination against those we have labeled as "other" or "less than," whether based solely on skin color, gender, or biological sexual orientation, has proven to be contrary to all moral and ethical principles laid forth by our founders. Their struggle to create this ideology was fought over what they believed this country could and should be, what we should represent as a beacon of hope based on fairness and honesty and all that is right.
Somehow, along the way, what is fair and right has taken on many forms based upon individual mores, hatred and arrogance. Self-imposed condemnation of another human being that is predicated on color, race, gender, sexual orientation, or other, in no way defines fairness.
In 1911, Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia introduced a U.S. constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriage. He called such a union, "repulsive and adverse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy."
Fortunately, all attempts to ban such marriages on a federal level failed, however, state-level bans were imposed and held steady for many years. Slowly, and one by one, states began to strike down their interracial marriage bans, but not until November of 2000, did the last state, Alabama, formally overturn a provision to their constitution that banned these unions.
Sadly, Roddenberry's skewed vision of black and white, or what was right or wrong, repugnant and destructive of moral supremacy, seems to have found a home in yet another cause - another fortress built of intolerance.
Today, we are spewing much of the same venomous rhetoric as Roddenberry. The only thing that has changed is the target of our discrimination. The fear and hatred of other, the baton of moral and ethical supremacy has been passed on to wedge its way between one segment of American society and another - gay and lesbian couples who wish to celebrate their love and commitment in legal marriage - and those who disapprove of their lifestyle.
Being gay is not a lifestyle choice, as many would like us to believe. It is a biological sexual orientation. And, intolerance of it cannot be separated from the actions of those who once wished to expunge, and continue to polarize others due to skin color, sexual preference, or gender once viewed as not vote-worthy. Less than.
What is the fear of gay and lesbian marriage? How can we judge and deny two consenting adults in committed, monogamous relationships the same benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples, of all colors, enjoy? Where is the equality?
A native Californian, Jan Baumgartner is a freelance writer currently living in Maine. Her background includes scriptwriting, comedy writing for the Northern California Emmy Awards, and travel writing for The New York Times. She has worked as a grant writer for the non-profit sector in the fields of academia, AIDS, and wildlife conservation and anti-poaching for NGO's in the U.S. and Africa. Her articles and essays have appeared in numerous online and print publications in the U.S. and internationally, including the NYT, Bangor Daily News, SCOOP New Zealand, Wolf Moon Journal, Media for Freedom Nepal, and Banderas News in Mexico. She's finishing a memoir about her husband's death from ALS and how travels in Africa became one of her greatest sources of inspiration and hope. She is a Managing Editor for OpEdNews.
fresh voice, maybe not......Obama plays to the polls like every one of them (politicians of course) he supported the invasion of Iraq and has never said that we should leave that quagmire.
Were we not so very desperate for leadership I doubt Mr. Obama would be getting such play.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 at 5:19:45 PM
I really would like to know how Barack Obama became such the political darling in the first place. Everywhere I look I see his name, his picture, or some commentary about how he is somehow the shining star that will light the way for the Democratic Party in 2008. How can this be? What makes him so special?
As to his opinion on gay marriage, what do you expect? The only way we gays are ever going to get our civil rights is for a champion to arise, struggle against the oppression of homophobia in this society, then die as a martyr like Martin Luther King. Only then will there be enough social impetus to end the last socially acceptable form of overt bigotry and discrimination.
The last socially acceptable form of overt bigotry and discrimination: isn't that just completely reprehensible? If you doubt it, all you need to do is listen to the preachers of the Religious Reich. Whether we are called "sinnners", "sodomites", "queers", "faggots", "perverts", or any of a large list of names, the idea is the same. We are seen as subhuman by most of society, and worthy of outright condemnation, brutality, and murder by the adherents of mainstream christianity.
Our lives and our loves are used as a means to rally the conservatives, both social and religious. And still, few if any people who aren't gay Americans see a problem with this. We are still denied our basic rights, as well as our right to have our relationships legally and socially recognized. And still, few if any people who aren't gay Americans see a problem with this. Our means of sexual expression is seen as a slipery slope headed towards bestiality. We are regularly and falsely accused of being child molestors. And still, few if any people who aren't gay Americans see a problem with this.
Until such time as the rest of the citizens of America see a problem with societal hatred towards gays, we will remain the recipients of the last socially acceptable form of overt bigotry and discrimination in America.
Can Obama really do anything about this? The issue of gay marriage means nothing to him. If it means nothing to him, why would he even want to try to do anything about it?
We need a real champion. I don't know who that champion will be. He or she does need to show up soon, though. It's long past time that the last vestage of open bigotry in America finds its way to the scrap heap. Only when that happens will this country finally be able to offer life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all it's citizens, regardless of any side issues.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Wednesday, November 1, 2006 at 4:00:20 AM
That Obama rises to prominance speaks more to the paucity of leadership within the Democratic Party than to his potentially unique fitness for higher office.
As to the continual bashing of the homosexual community, well, what else do the Republicans have going for them? Can they campaign on the economy? Can they point with pride to their foreign policies? Can Bush claim that his political appointments have performed with any degree of efficiency and impartiality? The answer to all above is a resounding HUH?.
I dont agree that you folks need a champion of the stature of MLKJr. to advance your rights. I may be a silly and optimistic leftist but I must have a large degree of faith in my fellow Americans to continue to struggle over the decades and I do. I strongly believe that, without the bashing by the GOP, designed to activate their base, those far right wing and agendized so-called "christians" and those who think "family values" is anything more than propaganda and empty phrases, we would slowly see the emergence of rights and equality for all Americans, gays included.
We all know, in our hearts, that the granting of legal status to gay unions in no way affects the status of heterosexual unions. If the Democrats had a heart and a morality they would stand foursquare for the truth and for the rightness of issues, but, sadly, they do not. Thus the struggle for common sense moves a bit slower but move forward it does.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Wednesday, November 1, 2006 at 7:27:20 AM
I dont agree that you folks need a champion of the stature of MLKJr. to advance your rights. I may be a silly and optimistic leftist but I must have a large degree of faith in my fellow Americans to continue to struggle over the decades and I do. I strongly believe that, without the bashing by the GOP, designed to activate their base, those far right wing and agendized so-called "christians" and those who think "family values" is anything more than propaganda and empty phrases, we would slowly see the emergence of rights and equality for all Americans, gays included.
First of all, let me tell you that the gay rights movement has been in operation since the fifties. It was begun by a man named Harry Hay. He formed a group known as the Mattachine Society. It got its name from a French medieval and renaissance masque group.
They were very secretive. Some times, they wore masks in public (owing to their name). The members rarely used their own given names. Meetings were generally by invitation only. At the time, social mores concerning homosexuals were considerably more restricted. Jail time was not unheard of, nor was police brutality, or violent gay bashing.
The Mattachines fell out of favor in the late sixties with the advent of the Stonewall Riots of 1969. The Stonewall Riots are the actual beginning of the modern "out and proud" gay movement. The name comes from the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village.
On the evening of Jun 28, 1969, the Stonewall riots began in response to a series of raids by New York City police on the bar. That particular night, one thousand drag queens, lesbians and other out and proud gays taunted police then threw rocks and debris in their direction. The police responded with violence. Similar riots occurred on successive nights thereafter. When gays celebrate gay pride in June, we are, in fact celebrating the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots.
So you see, we have been organized in some form or fashion since the fifties, and have been out and proud since the Stonewall Riots. That's over fifty years of organization, and almost forty of visibility.
And still, we are treated as second class citizens. And if it were only the morons in the Religious Reich that were the problem, that would be one thing. The point is and remains we are considered socially unacceptable by a large portion of Americans. While their reasons are manifold, the point remains, after almost forty years, we are the only group that has faces socially acceptable systematic bigotry.
If that doesn't cry out for a champion, what does? The black civil rights movement had Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and numerous others who were either champions, martyrs, or both. While there is no denying that bigotry against black people still exists, it is nowhere near the level that gays face.
That is because we have no champions and few real martyrs. Matthew Shepard can be seen as a martyr, but even his name is all but forgotten by most people. Until such time as a true champion for our cause arises, we shall remain the focus of overt bigotry from all sides, not just the Religious Reich.
It is easy to stand on the outside looking in and say we have no need for someone of the caliber of MLK to rise up for our cause. However, after forty years, isn't it about time that we were granted our basic human rights? If Canada, the UK, and many other European countries can grant us the right to our humanity, why is it so hard for the so-called "land of the free" to do the same?
We all know, in our hearts, that the granting of legal status to gay unions in no way affects the status of heterosexual unions. If the Democrats had a heart and a morality they would stand foursquare for the truth and for the rightness of issues, but, sadly, they do not. Thus the struggle for common sense moves a bit slower but move forward it does.
And, the Democrats will not stand for us until such time as they are forced to stand for us by a champion! Like other obsequious political whores, they are more worried about appearances of propriety than they are making a true moral stand. There is no real reason for homosexuals to be the focus of bigotry and hatred other than so-called religious morality; a real oxymoron if you ask me. Since there are many Democrats who wish to play (or pander) to the religious moralists, they cannot stand on principle for our cause. Ergo, they aren't our party, nor do I think they ever will be until such time as we have a real champion force the issue upon them.
This is not about common sense. This is about human rights. As long as gays can be the focus of bigotry, all can be. As long as one sub-group remains oppressed for any reason, all sub-groups remain oppressed. I personally am tired of waiting for the rest of this fucked up country to realize this truth.
There is no constitutional argument that can be proffered to keep gays second class citizens, yet that's what we are. If more people would just mind their own business (especially the Religious Reich, and other do-gooder fucks), gay rights would become a non-issue. Gay marriage would be completely acceptable, and even welcomed.
Look at Massachusetts. They have had gay marriage for a few years now. The state hasn't fallen into the Atlantic. Sulfur, toads, burning hail, and other plagues and curses haven't fallen on Boston. Hell, the Red Sox won the World Series even as gays and lesbians were marrying. Nothing bad has happened, and still, the rest of this country acts like giving gays the right to marry is going to spell our societal doom.
That's fucked! Sorry if you don't like expletives, but I can see no other way to put it. You know what's going to doom this country? Allowing DUBYA and his Republican henchmen to continue to rape it for all it's worth. You know what else is going to doom this country? A deficit that's so large, there is no way we could pay it off for the next fifty years. You know what else is going to doom this country? Keeping hatred and bigotry alive and well.
I ask, what is a bigger moral issue: allowing gays to marry, or allowing a war built upon mendacity to continue unchecked? I know what I think the answer is...how about you?
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 2:49:44 AM
I happened to be living in Greenwich Village during those Stonewall riots and am rather familiar with the events you note. I have had friends of all persuasions over the years and know more than a bit about the history of the fight for equal rights for gays.
African Americans have fought for their rights for a very long time and the mountain top is still out of reach, though closer than it once was, so the fight for equality for all is a continual battle, one that will be fought until it is won. Angry posts that serve only to alientate erstwhile allies serve little constructive purpose...dont I know that!
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 7:29:42 AM
Firstly, there are more folks here than just you. By the tone of your reply, you gave me the impression that you weren't hip to what's gone on with the "gay movement". If I was incorrect, then I apologize. If not, re-read my message and tell me how I can be wrong about the need for a real champion in the gay community. And, the information was also given for the edification of those who weren't completely aware of the struggles of the gay community, at least in recent modern history.
By the way, the concept of a champion is not a Pappy original by any means. While I don't recall exactly who said it originally, I do know I first heard the concept on Real Time With Bill Maher. The person who said it is also not queer. Therefore if someone who isn't "one of us" is observant enough of our movement to say we need a champion, I agree.
Secondly, as far as my being angry, what do you expect? I am not happy that gays remain the only sub-group of society that openly faces bigotry and discrimination. I am tired of hearing from people telling me this national disgrace shouldn't anger me. What should I do, put on the gay version of black face and sing "I Will Survive?" like a gay Steppin Fetchit? Should I become a Log Cabin Republican; or should I say a gay Uncle Tom? What do you suggest?
I wish I could approach the issues which I write about with some sense of emotional neutrality. However, as of this date and time, I have yet to master this ability. Because I may be upset, or yes, even angry doesn't in any way negate my words, or my feelings.
Can you be so neutral about your favorite issues? Would you be so neutral if it were you who were on the receiving end of the hell I have faced as a gay American? What hell, I hear you asking...
I have lost at least three good jobs because of discrimination. The best of the lot was when I was a mechanic in my early twenties. At the time, I was practicing "don't ask, don't tell". However, since I never learned how to lie and pretend that some big titted bimbo was getting me hot, I was discovered in short order. I took the mountain of evidence proving the bullshit I was enduring to my boss, and he did nothing to help. As a matter of fact, when I finally revolted against the shit, I was fired.
This has remained a theme throughout my employment history. I have only held one job where my sexuality wasn't an issue. It wasn't an issue because I wasn't the only homosexual in the place. That job was lost because of the DUBYA economy.
So am I angry? Yeah, wouldn't you be? It's very easy for folks who have no idea what it's like to be the focus of this kind of shit to spout their idealist crap. It's a lot different when you have to face it in your daily life.
Besides all that, do you honestly think there wasn't a bit of anger contained in some of the champions and martyrs for the civil rights movement of the sixties? If you do, you are blind to what motivates people to make changes. I have no doubt that MLK had some anger, even if he was a follower of Ghandi's non-violent message of revolt. I am sure Rosa Parks had some anger. There is no doubt Malcom X had it.
While things may not be all sunshine and roses for African Americans today, they have made great strides. Interracial marriage and dating is no longer officially defined as bestiality. The last state to drop laws prohibiting interracial marriage, Maryland, defined it as bestiality up to the point it was removed.
When the day comes that gays can bask in the sun, safe and without the spectre of open accepted institutionalized bigotry, or can marry in every state of this country, perhaps then I will tone down my rhetoric. Until that time, I will continue to rail against this bullshit. Maybe if more gays revolted, we'd be farther ahead than we are now.
After all, it took a thousand gays and lesbians participating in the Stonewall Riots to bring our struggle into the light. Maybe we need another round of civil disobedience of this sort to get through the thick skulls of the Religious Reich, and others who continue to marginalize us.
If we look at the history of this country, nothing changes until civil unrest rears its head. Perhaps it's time we showed a bit more of this necessary ingredient for social change.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 12:07:41 PM
I never suggested that the discrimination suffered by homosexuals in this society shouldnt anger you, hell it angers me and Im straight. What I referred to was anger seemingly directed at those who would see these wrongs corrected, those who would vote for your rights, those who are your allies.
Pappy, we are on the same side here, I assure you. I would imagine that those who we find here would be unanimous in their support for your right to be what you are and find equal protection under the law for your lifestyle.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 6:24:53 PM
I never suggested that the discrimination suffered by homosexuals in this society [shouldn't] anger you[;] hell it angers me and [I'm] straight. What I referred to was anger seemingly directed at those who would see these wrongs corrected, those who would vote for your rights, those who are your allies.
Those who are my allies? Who are they? Barack Obama? Hillary Clinton? Harry Reid? Other readers here at OpEdNews.com? As far as I can tell, I have very few allies in this fight. The Democratic party isn't really on my side. They are on the side of poll numbers. Since poll numbers indicate that over fifty percent of Americans don't support gay marriage, or gay rights for that matter, the Democratic party isn't going to go against those numbers. That would take real balls, and few if any Democrats even know what the word means, much less possess a pair between their thighs.
Let's be realistic for a moment here. There's the ideal, and there's the reality. Ideally, because I am a member of a "downtrodden" group within society, I should be a darling of the Democratic Party. Because they have painted themselves as the party of progressives, I should be up there on their list of people who need concerted efforts made on our behalf. They should be going out of their way to insure that my desires, and the desires of people like me are addressed in a fair way.
Now, let's wake up and smell the coffee, shall we? Gays are still out of favor in general society. The reasons are numerous, but most can be boiled down to two basic things: self-righteous religious spokesmen, or scared closet cases.
The former is pretty obvious, and frankly, apart from dropping a series of nukes on every "christian" church in this country, they are going to remain a continuous source of hatred and bigotry. The latter is much more insidious, and much harder to deal with adequately.
As long as both groups remain in existence, polls will continue to show gays as unpopular. As long as that remains the case, the Democratic Party isn't going to lift one finger to truly support us in our struggles. Whether you wish to face it or not, the simple truth is no political party that cares more about opinion polls than it does about what is right and proper with regard to the constitution is going to want to be a part of such an unpopular group of people as homosexuals.
So, I ask again, who are these supposed allies; you, your friends, the above list of political personalities? Frankly, apart from you and any of your friends who may read articles and commentary here, I doubt anyone with any real power to cause changes gives a shit about my kind or me. If they do, they have a rather strange and covert way of showing their concern.
The Democratic Party has far too many other irons in the fire to care. The Republicans look upon gays as the ultimate in evil...at least that's how they sell us to their "core". Who are my allies? I have none. Ergo, what difference does it make if I let off a little steam and blow some angry words at the proper focus of my anger? It makes no difference at all.
Besides all that, frankly, I am tired of the pop psychologists and "Dr. Feelgood" gurus who walk around telling me how bad it is for me to be angry. My anger is a part of me, and I am not going to deny it or downplay it for the sake of some politically correct whiner. No, you are not the "whiner" to which I refer. I refer to anyone and everyone who buys into all that "anger is bad" psychobabble.
Anger is a feeling. It is neither good nor bad. It is how anger is handled that makes it good or bad. Just like any other human emotion, if it is allowed to run amuck or kept unexpressed, it causes much harm. If it is expressed reasonably (i.e. the person directs it at the proper focus, and it isn't "off the deep end", so to speak) then it's a good thing. It can move mountains, change the political landscape, or bring sight to the willingly blind. If it isn't expressed properly, it can kill.
Therefore, if I appear angry, perhaps I am. Frankly, I'd rather express it, even if it might be a bit overboard, than I would not express it and have it eat me up from the inside out. I'll not bow to the whims of the pop psychologists or Dr. Feelgood gurus just because they presume to know more about my emotions than I. Who on earth died and left them the final arbiters of me? No one!
Pappy, we are on the same side here, I assure you. I would imagine that those who we find here would be unanimous in their support for your right to be what you are and find equal protection under the law for your lifestyle.
I have no doubt there are many here who are in full support of my kind, our struggles, and me. Beyond that, I am sure that I am not the only homosexual who writes articles and comments for this site. I have read a few articles and comments here that prove this to be the case.
However, to say "I would imagine that those who we find here would be unanimous in their support for your right to be what you are and find equal protection under the law for your lifestyle," is just a bit too naïve to be real. I know for a fact there are some people here who could care less. There are also some who would prefer I take a walk back into the closet with the rest of my kind.
Gay rights aren't everyone's issue. They never have been, nor do I think they ever will be. That's not to say that somewhere down the road, these issues will no longer be issues because gays will have been granted our civil rights at long last.
Until that time comes, you can rest assured I will not remain silent on this issue. If my lack of silence is taken as anger, then so be it. I'd rather be accused of being angry than be accused of being apathetic. I can only speak to things in the way I know how. Perhaps in the future, refinement will come my way, and I won't have to dip into the barrel of unpleasant human emotion to make my point. However, since that future isn't now, I guess everyone will have to muddle through reading my stuff, and dealing with any anger that may exist in it. If I have to deal with the anger of others here, then it's only fair others have to deal with mine.
Blessed be!
Pappy
by
Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 863 comments)
on Friday, November 3, 2006 at 12:06:25 PM
