I find it interesting, if I may interject my own words here for a moment, that it was Bill Clinton....of all presidents... who signed into law the so called "Defense Of Marriage Act". Bill Clinton, who was a philanderer, a liar, had no concept of the word "is", and who's marriage for unknown years has been little more than a convenience. But, that put aside, some may ask why this issue concerns me at all. After all, it's not like I have any prospects, any expectations of any sort of marriage any time soon. So why is it any of my business?
Well, one: it hurts a very good friend of mine.
Two: I still have hope.
Three: Any time we as Americans feel justified in taking the very basic rights of one group of people, we risk that very same thing happening to other groups of people. It is why Martin Luther King Jr. stated so clearly that "an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere". The fact that some would support the prejudice and discrimination involved in this issue is cause to wonder about that person's ethics in a greater scope. As an example: as a "white" male, I didn't support everything the Black Panthers, or N.O.I, or Malcolm X stood for. But, I do stand and say that a so called "black" man is a man just as any other of the so called designations and descriptions we use (ie: white, brown, red, yellow, etc.) - and women, too. I do stand and say that he has every right afforded any man, or woman, and vice verse.
You see, there are some in power who would fall all over themselves in denying by any method the taking away of the "black" man's rights - at least publicly - yet have no problem standing on their little morals and declare that a gay man's - or woman's - rights OUGHT to be denied them. Who is next? What is next? Americans stand up and outcry the 1%, not understanding how it is that such inequality has come about - as a current issue example. And, it wasn't all that long ago that this nation imprisoned Americans with Japanese ancestry for little other reason than suspecting collaboration. Who is next? It wasn't all that long ago that women were not allowed a vote, and in fact were considered property of the husband.
This is a repeating issue in this nation's history. We, as a country, must have our noses bloodied on occasion to come awake to the understanding of freedom, liberty, and justice. In the following clip, a number of politicians are mentioned by name..... some for equality, some against. This is how we can know clearly who to support, and who to oust.
ok, off my soap box now...
1 comment:
Hello Randy. I saw an interview with President Clinton where he said he had no choice and couldn't do anything better for gay folk because we simply couldn't deliver the votes he needed to block it. With the votes he had or could get he felt he had negotiated the best deal he could, and if he did not sign the bill there was threats of even more punitive measures to be taken against the civil rights of gay people.
He said he was not happy about it but there simply was no ability for the gay community at the time to rally enough votes to stop what the republicans were doing.
Boy am I glad times have changed and now we do have both political and legal rights.
Hugs, Scottie
Post a Comment