A Not-So-Civil View On Civil Rights

civil rights (n): Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.

With that out of the way, I'd like to direct you to Ann Coulter's comments on who deserves civil rights.

I'll give you a moment to recover from your shock.

.......

Ready? Okay.

While there are many good choices, I think this was my favorite quote:

"We don't owe the homeless. We don't owe feminists. We don't owe women who are desirous of having abortions or gays who want to get married to one another. That's what civil rights has become for much of the left."

So it seems that, in Ann Coulter's mind, a certain class of people deserve equal rights only if they have been enslaved in the past. I could go on a diatribe explaining why this is categorically ridiculous, but I'm not sure Miss Coulter leaves anything to be said. The fact that she thinks rights are some sort of currency to be doled out based on the degree to which a class was repressed is nonsensical. Whether or not this is more crazy than the fact that she seems to believe that immigrants, women, and homosexuals have never been repressed is debatable. Miss Coulter's ignorance of who deserves rights is surpassed only by her blatant disregard for current and historical events.

I don't think it possible for anyone to defend Miss Coulter's remarks. Whether or not you are pro-choice, whether or not you agree with gay marriage, no matter your beliefs on immigration, you cannot possibly believe that personal liberties and freedoms should be bargaining chips to be used as payment to bury the past. Shame on Miss Coulter for her remarks, and I believe that she should apologize: not to women, or gays, or immigrants, but to all Americans who should be offended that a woman who claims to be an American can have this sort of view on civil rights.

Going Forward

It seems like I've been spending a lot of time on this issue lately... but that's only because it keeps finding its way into the news.

In a history making statement, President Barack Obama has confirmed that he supports gay marriage. In this linked article, the President admits "...in this electoral map. It may hurt me." Which, most logical people would admit, is a very big possibility. While there continue to be polls that say that Americans today support gay marriage by a very slim margin, the issue loses every time it is put to a vote. This is because, as with many issues, the people against something tend to be more passionate and outspoken than the people for the same thing. These people are therefore more motivated to come out and vote.

This is a problem for the President; while this is unlikely to gain him many voters (people will vote against him over the economy, and this stance probably won't attract many of those people who happen to support gay marriage), it could be a turn-off to some of his supporters who may have been wavering. While they may not flock to Romney, some people, such as Evangelicals, may stay home instead of turning out for Obama. In an election that is already projected to be very tight, this could be a disaster.

I believe, knowing this, it took a great deal of courage for the President to come out an confirm something that he has probably personally believed for some time. I don't think he was necessarily forced into it by Biden or anyone else; Joe Biden is allowed to have an opinion on something, and that does not have to reflect the President's view. The way that the media has been beating Biden's comments to death may have had something to do with the timing of Obama's statement, however. The President did the right thing by standing firm and saying what he believes in, regardless of the inevitable political consequences.

Some call Obama's announcement a flip-flop. I suppose it could be construed that way, as the President has, in the past, argued against gay marriage. However, I also see a person's opinion on gay marriage as something that can change over time, much as Obama's view has. Being a Christian on one hand, and someone who favors equality and fairness on the other, one could see how the President could struggle with the issue. I believe it's understandable that someone's opinion on this could waver. Considering that the most likely political consequences of this announcement are negative, it would be difficult to cast this as a politically motivated statement (though cast away some on the right will).

In the end, I am proud of our President for showing true leadership and character on this issue. At a time when politics does nothing but constantly cause me to embarrassed for our country, this is a rare high note.

Going Backward

There are many reasons I weep for America, but I think this may jump straight to the top of the list.

On 5/8/12, the state of North Carolina voted to amend the state constitution to say that the only valid "domestic legal partnership in the state is marriage between a man and a woman". 


This is troubling for many reasons. We have:


- A majority voting to deny equal rights to a minority,
- Religious arguments (mostly erroneous and misquoted even if we accept the Bible as truth, by the way) being the basis for laws/amendments,

among other issues. These are just the two flagrant violations of the founding principals of America that immediately come to mind. I thought that we had done away with both of those long ago, but apparently not.

As a side note, I continue to be amused at the hypocrisy of those that use the Bible to condemn gay marriage because it is convenient for their belief system based on hate, but completely ignore the parts of the Bible that are bothersome for them (i.e, the people that have been divorced 2 times. Go see what the Bible has to say about that.)

Sigh... every so often I get my hopes up that this country may finally move into the present day in terms of social issues. It seems so simple... equality. One word... about as simple as it gets. However, Americans demonstrate time and again their inability to grasp even the easiest concepts. This episode has pretty much knocked down my hopes again, and all I can do is wonder what it would be like to live in a country that doesn't openly condone hate.

GOP Is Stuck In The Past

I suppose the title of this post is very vague; the GOP is stuck in the past on so many issues.

Today, I'm talking specifically about their opinion on homosexuals. Mitt Romney recently appointed Richard Grenell as a national security and foreign policy adviser for his campaign. Unfortunately, Mr. Grenell is openly gay. As one might guess, that did not sit too well with social conservatives. Because apparently, even having a gay man as an adviser is an affront to all that is right with humanity.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association tweeted "Romney picks out & loud gay as a spokesman. If personnel is policy, his message to the pro-family community: drop dead."

I cringe every time I hear that pro-family nonsense. Since when are gay people "anti-family"? How does the fact that gay people exist tear families apart? The only thing I can think of is that these families spend far too much time concerning themselves with what homosexuals are doing, and don't put any effort into their own family life. I'd have to say that's something they need to learn to deal with themselves. Sounds like some deep-seated issues there.

Mr. Grenell voluntarily removed himself from the Romney campaign, stating that he was becoming too much of a distraction. However, I think we all know the real reason, and I can't blame him: who wants to be criticized for just existing? My political leanings notwithstanding, I'm sure Mr. Grenell is a perfectly competent adviser. The fact that he was driven out of his position by people like Bryan Fischer and the AFA, in 2012, is sickening. These people should all be ashamed of themselves, and I am embarrassed for America that we still condone such behavior.

Maybe some good can come out of this... maybe Mr. Grenell will be able to see the GOP for what they really are and come over to the light side.

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal, And It's The Government's Fault

To me it's very clear that gay marriage should be allowed. But maybe not for the reasons many people think.

If it were just a question of a "celebration of love" or "a holy contract between a man, a woman, and God", I honestly wouldn't care either way.

But that's not what marriage is. At least, not anymore. Government decided to get involved. In the present day world, marriage is a contract between two people and the government. There are tons of benefits of being married; actual, tangible benefits. This website has an enormous list of the benefits of marriage. Especially amusing is the quote "if you are in a domestic partnership or civil union... none of the benefits of marriage under federal law will apply to you, because the federal government does not recognize these same-sex relationships". Also, "...you may not file joint federal income tax returns with your partner... and other federal benefits, such as Social Security death benefits and COBRA continuation insurance coverage, may not apply".


This isn't a question about religion anymore. It stopped being about religion the moment government benefits came into the equation. It's about the fact that government has decided to endow couples certain special privileges, and as everyone is created equal, everyone should be entitled to these same privileges.


Either that, or eliminate every single privilege enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Whatever floats your boat.