Wednesday, November 05, 2008

The N***** in the Woodpile

Amid the euphoric shouts, a few hacking coughs. Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action ballot question wins in Nebraska. He makes lemonade out of lemons by declaring that Obama's win vindicates him. "Finally we are rid of the scourge of race." In Arkansas, gay couples can't adopt or atc as foster parents. Better to send the kids--and the state $$$--to scumbags who abuse and ignore these kids, and make a living treating them like cattle, than put them with affluent, caring, committed people. People. American, human people. Or in Cali, 7 out of ten black voters who voted on the gay marriage ban voted YES. I'm sure TD Jakes and the rest of these mega pastor turds are behind this (I wonder what these bamas would say when they realize their idol, Tyler Perry, is a fagolah as the Jews say!). When will we value people as people, as Americans?


Robert M said...

We have to take the bad w/ the good. Today is a very good day.

Lisa said...

Thanks for calling out TD Jakes and Tyler Perry. Hypocrits and they have the nerve to bite on Barack's glory.

Tafari said...

The mix of good & bad was very intense. Race relations take a huge step forward, gay rights got fucked with no vaseline.

The church, evangelicals, pulpit pimps & ignorant supremacists are to blame.

My gay friends were very down today & felt them but I was feeling my racial high a little more.


rikyrah said...

there are like, what 25 Black people in all of Nebraska....WTF?

Connerly is a SAMBO.

TLW said...

Since we are in this "post racial" era now Nebraska is just the tip of the iceberg. Racism is no more, end of Black politics indeed.

Anonymous said...

I didn't know Tyler Perry is gay. Where is that information?

It's a great day as far as images. And here is what I mean by this: Regardless of how he became "black", Obama is the first non-white man to become the president in the 232 years America declared independence from Britian.

Obama is not the end all be all, but today is a great day like Robert M said...

Knute Rife said...

Maybe Blacks have made it to the mainstream. Sure seem to be acting White. Let's see:

"Representatives" who are always available to front any Ueberklass power grab (Ward Connerly will put his face on any "grassroots" initiative to reinstate Jim Crow. Thomas Sowell will keep the Noise Machine screaming away. And Clarence Thomas will keep the spirit of Roger B. Taney alive in our courts.)? Check.

Deliberately mislabeled astroturf organizations faking public opinion (ACRI "promotes civil rights about the same way the KKK "promotes race relations.")? Check.

Folks who've climbed the ladder and made it to the top and now vote nothing but their pocketbooks and kick everyone below them in the face (Pick a name, any name.)? Check.

A HUGE group of people who will vote their ignorance and hate even if it's against their own interest and who are too stupid to pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel unless their preacher read them to them? Check.

Yep, welcome to the "mainstream".

There are a few more than 25, but Nebraska and states like it a targeted for initiatives like this because they have such small minority populations. Ernie Chambers of course spoke out against Connerly, but as has been the case for 40 years, he was a voice crying in the wilderness.

Deocliciano Okssipin Vieira, aka Ochyming said...

Why you sound LESS toxic Rightful as you are?
Love it when you "yell"!

I wonder HOW can stigmatized ones bear prejudice?
You'd say Stupidity, I guess.

Snowman said...

I am torn by much ambivalence on the gay issue. No more so than on the foster and adoption parents issue. I do not support gay marriage, but at the same time there are indeed unscrupulous and indeed insane or criminal people who take advantage of indifferently-run social services agencies to become foster parents. You have seen the result here in Maryland and the District of Columbia, and in rural Virginia. Children are abused, even killed and mummified! If one or two gay men or two gay women are educated, have a good jib and really care about children, and do not try to indoctrinate a child into homosexuality, then why should it be illegal? I figure the Arkansas voters felt that the indoctrination risk was too great. That I disagree with, especially when other considerations are in the balance.

I voted for Barack Obama. He is the first Democrat for whom I voted since Jimmy Carter in 1976. There were many reasons and I will admit I was disgusted by Palin, her trashiness and her demagogery and this counterbalanced my respect to John McCain who was and is a consumate public servant. However, I did see some promise in Obama and something I have not seen since Ronald reagan and John F. Kennedy and even Truman when i was kid, and that is a sense of destiny. Getting back to the other issues, perhaps he will revisit these issues about gays and such and try to bring the rest of the country along, slowly by decisively. Unlike "W", this is what good presidents do!

How did you vote on slot machines? Speaking of African Americans, I wish our Lt. Governor was in charge, and not O'Malley.

Anonymous said...

Hello--Tyler Perry is gay. No one wants to talk about it because of the reasons Mr. Chambers relays. Honesty about one's self leads to honesty in your work product. Which is why is work is so stupid and low class.

Ward Connerly is a cancer. He might as well marry Ann Coulter.

Anonymous said...

SoCal 82 Tiger Says:

Not to put too fine a point of challenging your rant against poor Ward, but Obama's election occurred BECAUSE a vast number of white voters - over 50% in almost EVERY demographic dissection of these voters - voted for him. The American political reality, at least for another few generations, is that the only way ANYONE (of any color, creed, or gender) is going to get elected President (or governor, senator, or mayor of most states and cities) is to appeal to at least a slim majority of white voters. Regardless of the reason - Belief in his ideas, inspired by his words, or pissed off at Bush & Republicans... Across the country a lot of white voters were moved to vote for him....

Shelby Steele is right on point to proclaim that this is the FIRST time in history a majority white nation elected a black person to a head of state. The radical left is the US is dead wrong to continue the same tired dated rants that utterly and completely proclaim the USA as the racist hate-filled “KKK of America”!

FOR the record: 90% plus of Black voters voted for Mr. Obama despite the fact that their votes on other matters (such as on prop 8 in CA) suggest they don't see eye to eye with him on all liberal social issues. IF I was a cynical man I might make the argument that racism is still alive and well among Black voters who voted for only for skin color while overlooking values, content, and character! But, I am not so foolish as to blindly and glibly rant that all Blacks are racist because they only desired to vote for Mr. Obama - EVEN IF this time the only reason they voted for him only was because he is their “candidate of color”… Only a dolt would deny that this is not a special time in America. To reach a point in American Politics where Black and White voters in our Nation elected Mr. Obama after being told for generations it would NEVER happen is an amazingly sublime historical moment that without a doubt brings feelings of great pride and achievement for everyone throughout the Black community. America is in every sense become THE NATION were ANYONE can not only become a Supermodel, Oscar Film Star, Mega Media Mogul, Major Corporate CEO, Sports Star, Billionaire, Mayor, Governor, Senator, Head Of The Joint Chiefs, BUT NOW ALSO President!!! It's my hope that one day in the future we’ll see a time when everyone votes for a candidate beyond simple skin color and/or gender. That will also be a great day for America when people truly let their own values, character, and pocketbooks have as much a say in determining who they vote for as the superficiality of seeing only color or gender.... THAT's the next level of the American Political Evolution!

As to your anger over the Prop 8 vote - I see both sides, as F'd up about this matter... But, the move for relationship equality for gays and lesbians has existed for years in CA in that the laws concerning CA State Civil Unions have progressed so as to provide most if not ALL of the same benefits of "marriage" to gays and lesbians couples in state civil unions... The move to go further and redefine THE WORD marriage to mean something more beyond its traditional meaning should be a big a concern to most people. IF for example there was a movement afoot to declare that men and women not only have equal rights and protections but that they are also THE SAME, I suspect there would be a huge backlash against such foolishness.... We have seen repeatedly that as any “Group” gains legal, social, and economic equality it does not lead to anyone in or out of the group to declare they are THE SAME as other groups. I know you are an attorney so I plead with you that you spare me any attempts at Clintonesque obfuscation by saying my argument depends on what I mean by saying THE SAME No one who knows me would say that I am Black, Jewish, a Women, or Gay; and Professor I would never declare you to be White, Mormon, or a Lesbian. We share a common bond of legal equality, and socio-economic opportunity Professor, but you know we are not that same! AND THAT IS NOT A BAD THING! America has been a place where were celebrate our commonness and our uniqueness.

My prior discussion does not even touch upon the other huge minefield of this issue - The stumbling into the separation of church-state arguments that this social engineering nonsense will create as/when mainstream churches find themselves involved if not purposely targeted in future litigation for trying to maintain their own traditional views of marriage. They will be fighting against a non-compromising tyrannical minority that will also have with the authority and assistance of the State to steamroll and agenda to declare traditional beliefs and faiths illegal and unconstitutional. Oh, and by the way, since were are up for getting into governments meddling in the religion business, is anyone up for the argument to reverse polygamy laws; or for that matter, how about incest or age or consent laws???

Professor I afraid to be the barer of bad news and tell you that as long as that such fundamental facts are not better addressed and acknowledged, then this fight is going to continue for a long time across this country…

Deocliciano Okssipin Vieira, aka Ochyming said...

What damage gay marriage does?

What is more important in a marriage?

--- Is it the religious symbolism?
--- ... or what it REALLY means, two or many people taking care of each other, IT predates Christianity, Judaism or any other ism out there!

I wonder HOW many humans contributed to the human condition more than Baldwin, Langston Hughes or William S. Burroughs ...

Maybe sexual insecurity is to blame.

Anonymous said...

When did Tyler Perry come the closet? That's right. He didn't, so why spread rumors?

It's so tacky.

And in what Taylor Perry movie/play did he say anything remotely anti-gay?

Wait a minute, you would have to watch one of those plays to answer that.

Just because someone is Christian doesn't mean they are gay-bashers.

Lisa said...

Monica please. I wonder what's going on in his remote compound now? hehehehe I'm sure if it's defamation he can sue the Professor and then as a public figure he can attempt to prove reckless disregard for the truth in depositions. hehehehe

I'm confident there are way too many Christians who are anti-gay especially in the anonymity of a voting machine. Would care to do polling to check? I mean African Americans here and not just evangelical whites.

Knute Rife said...

@ anonymous SoCal82 Tiger

Chris isn't jumping in here to address your issues, but I'm an attorney too, so I'll take a crack at them.

The state has established a legal relationship it calls marriage. It allows religions to perform the ceremony creating this relationship, but it does not require them to do so, and it does not require any religion to perform a marriage ceremony contrary to its creed (The LDS Church may restrict who can go to its temples, the Roman Catholic Church may impose its prerequisites, etc.). There really isn't anything to support the scare-mongering about churches being compelled to perform gay marriages.

The law also allows certain civil authorities to perform marriage ceremonies. The law makes no distinction between civil marriages and church marriages. Further, the law does not require that couples be fertile, intend to procreate, intend to have only procreative sex, or intend to have any kind of sex. Regardless of any of this, the law considers the marriage valid.

None of these points invalidates a heterosexual marriage; every one of these points is raised as a reason to invalidate homosexual marriages. You need to explain why issues that are nonissues for heterosexual marriages become fatal when applied to homosexual marriages, and then you need to explain why the distinction you draw is so compelling that the state should discriminate between its citizens in such a way.

Then you need to explain why the state should discriminate between religions. You raise church and state issues that as I note above simply are not going to happen. On the other hand, there are presently far worse church and state issues caused by the ban on homosexual marriages. A number of churches (including Episcopal, United Church of Christ, and Unitarian Universalist) consider it within their doctrine to perform homosexual marriages, but the state is saying, "No, you may not practice your doctrine because we have decided to ban such marriages."

If you think that allowing civil unions somehow gets around this problem, think again. All that means is that the state is saying, "Roman Catholic Church, we're going to recognize all your marriages. Episcopal Church, we're not going to recognize all of yours. You have to recharacterize some as "civil unions" regardless of what your doctrine says." If you're afraid of church-state issues, you need to take a harder look at the current regime.

Christopher Chambers said...

The matter is pretty simple. As elemantal and primordial as this: you are either a human being or not. You are either an American who is owed the blessings of liberty by the local government to whom to pay taxes and which enjoys the benefit of your labor or not. There's no in between. There are no fine legal distinctions and re-calibrations. Besides, how does aspiration to a thing degrade the thing aspired to? That makes no sense.

Irony here is that Hollywood is in Cali, and as with black people Hollywood has played to Palin-world in its images of gays. Guess what--99% aren't flamboyant mincing blue haired freaks or buzz cut bulldyke. More so than the general population they are well educated and hold down good jobs. And yet in Arkansas, these people considered worse than molesters now. They do not have the human right to choose a mate to love and support? And yes Knute's right--a faith that supports this blessing is now reprobate in the eyes of the law? So now the government's supporting one faith over and another, indirectly. Last time I checked, that's against a no no uner the Bill of Rights.

But again, it's a question of philosphy. In the Presidential votes, Americans overwhelmingly resisted tribalism. I guess we have more work to do.

As for Ward Connerly, it never ceases to amaze me that white people see nothign wrong with this scenario: the University of Nebraska utterly denuded of students of color EXCEPT for semi-literate brothers in the Cornhuskers backfield and secondary. Interestingly, white parents in Cali are pulling back a bit on this when they saw their kids displaced by Asians. Hahahaha

nyc/caribbean ragazza said...

To be honest I was shocked to see the minority vote break down on Prop 8.

I wish some of the high profile gay black mega stars would come out of the closet (I know it will never happen) and speak out about the homophobia in our community.

Anonymous said...

SoCal 82Tiger

Professor & Knute Rife:

Not to drone on but lets have a brief history recap - The problem with this area of our lives is that despite the Separation of Church & State and Establishment Clause hand-ringing, the foundations for marriage make it the ONE place in society that both the State and Religions claim and share a joint interest.
We know that Marriage was not created out of the need to “share love and life” (that’s a modern concept), BUT from the necessity to smoothly ensure inheritance and transfer ownership of property to legitimate family heirs. “Marriages were both approved by Law (The State) while sanctioned & blessed under the eyes of God”.
Up until the last few decades the civil union of marriage and the religious ceremony of marriage were in a joint partnership that worked because both institutions held the SAME core belief as to who should marry (man/women).

As the State has expanded it’s definition of who can obtain the right of civil union the state is no longer in complete agreement with not only every major religious organization, but also out of step with every great moral thinker of the last 5,000 years.

My point is that the State has now put itself into creating it’s own civil union business. Religion wants to remain only in the marriage business. There is nothing discriminatory or prejudiced to proclaim that Marriage is a Civil Union BUT all Civil Unions are not Marriages. The State can and should continue to authorize any group or person they believe should be permitted to have Civil Unions. It does not matter that they all have the same benefits. Just don’t tell rational thoughtful people that they are THE SAME. Like I said before I can’t wait to see your same arguments repeated by enlightened folk in the future when both Plural and/or Incestuous Marriage discussions return before the State and come up for approval.

As I would expect to hear form the good lawyers that you both are; your Prop 8 arguments centered mostly within church and state and establishment clause legalese. What neither of you did to any degree of satisfaction is take my first point - MANY reasonable minded people voted for Prop 8 not because they are Homophobic or anti gay... The redefining of marriage into meaning something it has never meant IS THE PROBLEM... EVERY person I have met who is not a right leaning wing-nut AND voted for Prop 8 sgrees that providing legal rights to domestic partners as a desirable thing. Legal Equality between people or institutions does not mean that they are THE SAME!

Again I ask both of you - Do you think (beyond just legally) that men and women are the same??? IF you both say yes then there is no chance to have a further rational discussion about this issue because you both have so confused the meaning of EQUALITY and THE SAME as to make a practical discussion impossible. If this is the case then I’ll paraphrase the words of a Dennis Prager – I’ll appreciate the profound clarity of our difference of opinion over agreement.

Somewhere in your excellently trained legal minds I hope you both can remember that balancing the promotion of legal, social, economic progress and opportunity while also respecting tradition is not undesirable or mutually exclusive goals for our society.

Anonymous said...

I argue with my husband about this, and I reluctantly have to concede that he has a point that was similar (I think) to Professor, Knute Rife and SoCal 82. He thinks that a marriage should be a man and a woman. So when you say I am married and you are a man the person to whom you are speaking knows that your spouse is a woman. Why gay marriage should not work is beyond me--but. So civil unions or partnerships aren't as good as a marriage and they aren't. Could we just have a word that means two people of the same sex who are MARRIED? I would suggest paired, because it is not currently used in marriage and has several other words that would work.

For example: I'm paired.
I would like you to meet my pair.
Yes, I would say that I have a very good pairage. And in all cases the other person in the relationship is of the same sex. But pairage should be defined exactly as marriage except for the members are of the same sex.

Knute Rife said...

@SoCal 82Tiger

First, your distinction between a state union and a religious union has no basis in our present legal system. The law classifies both as marriage, defines the relationship, restricts who may perform the ceremonies creating it, requires a state-issued license for it to take effect, and establishes the procedure for dissolving it. Labeling this "legalese" and various other pejoratives doesn't change that this is the law (for heterosexuals) and the system we in fact have.

Second, the issue is not that some religions "want to stay in the marriage business." The issue is that some religions want to use state authority to dictate to other religions what marriage is. Such state discrimination between religions is constitutionally impermissible without a compelling interest, and you have yet to state any such interest.

"Plato didn't like it" is not a compelling state interest. "It would mean redefining marriage" isn't a compelling state interest, especially considering how much we've redefined marriage in the last 200 years.

"Men and women are different." What's that even supposed to mean? As a married father of four (three girls, one boy), yes, believe it or not, I had noticed a difference. How does that apply to the issue? As I stated above, contrary to your argument, the state is in the marriage business. It defines what marriage is. If one religion wants to restrict its definition of marriage and refuse to perform any that are not between a man and a woman. The problem we currently have is that some religions are saying to other religions, "We believe marriage must be between a man and a woman, and we are going to use the state to force you to comply with our doctrine."

That is establishment of religion, it's the mess we have right now, it's what Proposition 8 does, and it's what your argument is all about. That isn't legalese. That is the logically compelled result of your argument.

Anonymous said...

Well, I'm glad blacks voted yes on prop 8. It shows that we haven't hit rock bottom yet, but we are surely headed there is we start embracing this nonsense. Not that all the other crap we seemed to have embraced isn't as bad. This just seems to be the exception. But I'm sure same s all the filth in this world, we'll eventually accept, and promote this too.

Anonymous said...

What about that piece of shit Ward Connerly and his Initiative to Preserve Civil Rights (that's what it was called on the Nebreska ballot)? Gay marriage isn't the big issue for me now. However I think the Prop 8 is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Anonymous said...

not sure if perry is gay, but i wish he'd stop wearing dresses in his movies...i'm just sayin'

Anonymous said...

SoCal 82Tiger

Re: Knute Rife -

First, thank you for being honest and acknowledging that men and women are different. It is an applicable thought to consider as part of this discussion in that only a fool would attempt to constitutionally redefine that men and women (in addition to having legal equality) are also the same...

Every legal change in marriage up to the last few years has been to expand it as a right to all men and women who wish to marry. You are now calling for a rewriting of that definition. All I am pointing out is that most people, NOT just raving religious zealots & bigots, do not see a man and woman in union as THE SAME as man/man or women/women in a similar union.... They may concede equal legal protections and guarantees, BUT they will not say it is the same.

Here is a thought to ponder – A better change might be to make all state ceremonies of unions, regardless of the gender of the participants, be re-defined as civil unions. The term marriage could then be reserved outside of the area of the State for the “traditional defined” religious ceremony of marriage. It is a WIFM for everyone – The State has not then redefined marriage and every group still shares in the legal equality protections of their civil unions.

Just like abortion, and 2nd Amendment gun rights, as long as there is an extreme side (or two extreme sides for that matter) in this discussion/fight there is the likelihood of no solution because no one wants to think of a solution that concedes anything to the other side...

Knute Rife said...

@ SoCal 82Tiger
You're setting up same strawman Phyllis Schlafly & Co. set up to fight the ERA. No one is trying to say men and women are the same. I'm simply pointing out the logical ramifications of state authority being used to force one sect's doctrines on another. It's wrong and it's unconstitutional.

As for making all state ceremonies "civil unions" and reserving "marriage" for religious ceremonies, all that does is expand the list of people who can't get married to include atheists. To what end? Simply so some sects can continue to enjoy state approval of their marriage doctrines at the expense of others.

Anonymous said...

SoCal 82Tiger Says

Re: Knute Rife – Thanks again for the continued challenges. I would be setting up a straw man IF I were advocating that I wished to deny legal rights and protections to a targeted group. You and I will have agree to disagree that one of the two dogs in this fight wants the State to move beyond just providing legal equality to a group.

They are seeking to use the Courts as a hammer to bypass both the legislative and/or amendment process and strike a proclamation (to the opposition of most people) that same-sex civil unions are the same as man-women couples in the traditional historical form of marriage that has existed from the creation of this institution. NO ancient or modern society has seen fit to ever make the all or nothing re-definition that equal means the same.

Hell, even among the ancient Greeks, where love among men (and boys) was encouraged and tolerated, it was claimed that they professed the belief that real love existed only between men and not a men & woman. They NEVER sought to redefine marriage to be anything other then a man & women union...

As you and I go round and round about this disagreement, I freely acknowledge that I will never presume to have every legal and/or constitutional argument covered during this discussion. With that said I strongly encourage you to ponder how WE can best balance the competing interests at battle here. It's always easy to say you can't do something - perhaps you have an idea for what can work for all sides???

Knute Rife said...

@SoCal 82Tiger
You're right, we're going to have to agree to disagree. We can't even accept each other's statements of the facts.