He hasn't had to evolve; he's always fought for respect, dignity and equal rights for all people. In the segretated '60's, he put himself (physically) on the line in the civil rights movement. He has always stood up for LGBTQI Americans, LONG before it recently became politically correct to do so. He stands up for the earth, which has no voice. He stands up for the poor, reminding us that our government is supposed to be by the people and for the people, not by the corporations and for their profit. He stands for children, for college students and for senior citizens. He stands for families--for policies that embody and empower true family values, like maternity and paternity leave, child care, and health care for all. He has always stood up for what is right. He has always seen it. He has always known it. He has always lived it.
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Bernie Has Always Lived the Change I Wish to See in the World
Bernie and his campaign move me to tears, in a very good way.
He hasn't had to evolve; he's always fought for respect, dignity and equal rights for all people. In the segretated '60's, he put himself (physically) on the line in the civil rights movement. He has always stood up for LGBTQI Americans, LONG before it recently became politically correct to do so. He stands up for the earth, which has no voice. He stands up for the poor, reminding us that our government is supposed to be by the people and for the people, not by the corporations and for their profit. He stands for children, for college students and for senior citizens. He stands for families--for policies that embody and empower true family values, like maternity and paternity leave, child care, and health care for all. He has always stood up for what is right. He has always seen it. He has always known it. He has always lived it.
He hasn't had to evolve; he's always fought for respect, dignity and equal rights for all people. In the segretated '60's, he put himself (physically) on the line in the civil rights movement. He has always stood up for LGBTQI Americans, LONG before it recently became politically correct to do so. He stands up for the earth, which has no voice. He stands up for the poor, reminding us that our government is supposed to be by the people and for the people, not by the corporations and for their profit. He stands for children, for college students and for senior citizens. He stands for families--for policies that embody and empower true family values, like maternity and paternity leave, child care, and health care for all. He has always stood up for what is right. He has always seen it. He has always known it. He has always lived it.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Time to Find a Secret Annex?
Donald J. Trump, a few moments ago: "We have to look very seriously at the mosques."
My reaction: Oh my God this really is like right before Nazi Germany.
Donald J. Trump, right after that: "We are in a war. We don't know where these people are."
My reaction: Probably hiding in an secret annex somewhere if "they" know what's good for them. And I need to get a suitcase ready, and find my annex because I think I'm a "they" in Trump's eyes. Even if not, when he starts rounding people up from mosques, that is when I will put a star of David on my arm and say "Take me, too."
My reaction: Oh my God this really is like right before Nazi Germany.
Donald J. Trump, right after that: "We are in a war. We don't know where these people are."
My reaction: Probably hiding in an secret annex somewhere if "they" know what's good for them. And I need to get a suitcase ready, and find my annex because I think I'm a "they" in Trump's eyes. Even if not, when he starts rounding people up from mosques, that is when I will put a star of David on my arm and say "Take me, too."
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Get the Memo
Memo to everyone in the United States of America:
The constitution of this great country, which is also the main thing that makes this such a great country, is about equal civil rights for all American citizens. The Supreme Court took up the issue of same-sex marriage and ruled that, constitutionally, no matter what one's sexual orientation, every American citizen has the right to marry.
The constitution of this great country, which is also the main thing that makes this such a great country, is about equal civil rights for all American citizens. The Supreme Court took up the issue of same-sex marriage and ruled that, constitutionally, no matter what one's sexual orientation, every American citizen has the right to marry.
Apparently, the above memo I just issued is necessary, as there are some who are just NOT understanding and/or accepting this reality. If you don't like the constitution, go move to another country which isn't ruled by it. And by "ruled by", I also mean "protected by". See ya later, Chief Justice Roy S. Moore of Alabama. And don't worry: you can always come back to America for a visit, as I'm guessing you are not Muslim.
Click this link to see the NPR article that prompted me to write the above memo/blog.
Click this link to see the NPR article that prompted me to write the above memo/blog.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Binary Blues
The following article (see link below) infuriates and profoundly dismays me. This is what's wrong with society! Why can't this kid just be himself? He's not "wearing a disguise", he just doesn't fit into society's/the DMV's binary box of what a male should look like. This is who he is and he has the right to be who he is, binary box be damned!!!!!!!!!
If he keeps having experiences like this, he may feel like he has to "choose" one way or the other (one side or another of the gender binary) instead of just being himself, and that is a crime. Why should he have to fit himself into what the DMV or anyone else says he should be? He doesn't fit neatly on one side or the other of "the line", and that is PERFECTLY FINE--the DMV doesn't have the right to say "Step onto what we define as the MALE side of the line!" This just infuriates me beyond any ability to even adequately express the degree of my infuriation.
P.S. PLUS this is a clear violation of his civil rights and I hope he takes this all the way up to the Supreme Court!
Link: Teen forced to remove his make-up for driver's license photo.
If he keeps having experiences like this, he may feel like he has to "choose" one way or the other (one side or another of the gender binary) instead of just being himself, and that is a crime. Why should he have to fit himself into what the DMV or anyone else says he should be? He doesn't fit neatly on one side or the other of "the line", and that is PERFECTLY FINE--the DMV doesn't have the right to say "Step onto what we define as the MALE side of the line!" This just infuriates me beyond any ability to even adequately express the degree of my infuriation.
P.S. PLUS this is a clear violation of his civil rights and I hope he takes this all the way up to the Supreme Court!
Link: Teen forced to remove his make-up for driver's license photo.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Pork Yes, Love Thy Neighbor No?
Soooo, let me see if I have this: If I'm a Christian restaurant owner in Arizona, it's okay if I serve pork (bible says no), open my restaurant on Saturday (bible says no), and serve shellfish (again, big fat NO), yet I can't, in good conscience, allow all my fellow humans equal access to my establishment because "those people" over there, who I am commanded to LOVE by the bible I claim to be bound to follow, engage in some behavior that I don't approve of and that I think God doesn't approve of (even though God clearly says I'm supposed to LOVE MY NEIGHBOR AS MYSELF) ...or I think they do, I can't really tell because right now they are just two people presenting themselves at my restaurant and asking to be let in and allowed to support my business.
So, do I have this situation evaluated correctly?
Well, I might have to open a restaurant in AZ and refuse to serve radcon fundie bigots because they are VERY offensive to everything that MY religion stands for!*
And where does it stop? Religious freedom is fundamental to our constitution. Bigotry and discrimination are NOT. Get to know the diff, fundie radcons.
( * AND everything that my COUNTRY stands for!!! You know, the constitution: yeah, THAT. That's what the laws in this country are built on, NOT on what ONE radical, hate-filled wing of ONE religion MISINTERPRETS their own bible to be saying!)
So, do I have this situation evaluated correctly?
Well, I might have to open a restaurant in AZ and refuse to serve radcon fundie bigots because they are VERY offensive to everything that MY religion stands for!*
And where does it stop? Religious freedom is fundamental to our constitution. Bigotry and discrimination are NOT. Get to know the diff, fundie radcons.
( * AND everything that my COUNTRY stands for!!! You know, the constitution: yeah, THAT. That's what the laws in this country are built on, NOT on what ONE radical, hate-filled wing of ONE religion MISINTERPRETS their own bible to be saying!)
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Memo to Antonin Scalia: "Separate but Equal" = Unconstitutional
Antonin Scalia: "I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?"
Me: Well, I can't believe I have to inform you on this, since you are a Supreme Court Justice (!!!) and therefore should know the basics of constitutional law, but since clearly you do NOT, allow me to answer your dumb-ass, bigoted question: It became illegal to exclude homosexual couples from marriage the day the constitution became the law of this land.
Do you have any other questions I can answer for you, Antonin?
P.S. Get with it, Antonin. Just because "separate but equal" is state law in some states, doesn't make it CONSTITUTIONAL. Just look at the history of our country: The constitution will trump bigotry, every time. Even when it is euphemistically labeled "separate but equal'
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
I have a dream today.
Yesterday, the new Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial opened on the National Mall, just a stone’s throw from the Lincoln Memorial, where Dr. King delivered his inspiring “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963. The very fact of this memorial is a breathtaking testament to how far we’ve come in the realization of Dr. King’s dream. While the memorial opened to the public yesterday (see link below), the official dedication will take place this coming Sunday, August 28, 2011, on the 48th anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech.
I was one year old on August 28, 1963. Too young to remember the speech when it was originally delivered, yet it became deeply etched in the DNA of my entire generation, even those of us who were babies when Dr. King actually delivered it. His dream was for us. I’m white yet I feel his dream included me. He dreamed of black children and white children together, no “separate but equal”, just equal. To this day, I cannot listen to that profoundly stirring speech without tearing up. So much of his dream has been realized, just as he envisioned it from the “mountaintop”. He would be (and I imagine he is, looking down on events such as the inauguration of the nation’s first African-American president) so gratified and glad of that. Yet so very much is left to be done, not just for people of color, but for all oppressed people. Dr. King deeply cared about his specific people, African-Americans, yet he also clearly saw the non-violent fight for civil rights and freedom as a universal struggle. If any are not free, none are truly free. As Dick Gregory once said: “Oppression is more detrimental to the oppressor than it is to the oppressed.” A society and a world that tolerates violence, let alone encourages it in any way(s), against any group will never be healthy, will never be truly free.
In our own country and in our world, there is so much of Dr. King’s dream, so much of the work of it, left to do for those of us who were one year old or not even born yet when he gave his “I Have a Dream” speech. Just focusing on our country (if I panned out to the entire world, that would make for a LONG blog), it is hard to know where to start and easy to get extremely discouraged. There is so much inequality, so much hatred, so much bigotry. Inequality takes many forms. There is inequality in the law as, for example, gay people cannot marry in many states, which is a clear, classic denial of civil rights. Separate but equal water fountains were never really equal, nor is a civil union really the same thing as a marriage certificate. Failed private corporations are bailed out with tax dollars while children live in poverty and elected officials at all levels try to slash and burn programs like Medicaid, Headstart and WIC that help them. I WANT my taxes to go to our children, not to failed corporations like AIG. Our government wants to subsidize new nuclear plants but decimate public education, Social Security and Medicare. In other words, private corporations come first in our society, actual human citizens of the country are a distant second.
I think that Dr. King would see all of this as part of the struggle, as the ongoing work we need to do to fully realize the dream. Folks, we are nowhere near done. As my mom often says about various and sundry things, “Thank God we’re this far!”, yet while it is important to acknowledge how far we’ve come, it is even more important to honor Dr. King’s dream by honestly seeing that we are nowhere near done. There is hatred, there is bullying, there is oppression, there is violence, there is an ever-widening chasm between rich and poor, there is disparity in our laws. There is still “separate but equal”, it just takes new forms. We have to see it with clarity and fight it with the same “soul force”, the same creative, non-violent means that visionary, inspiring, effective leaders like Dr. King and Gandhi employed.
Are the days of marching in the streets, hand in hand, standing one for all and all for one, over? No. As Dr. King said in 1963, this is “not an end, but a beginning”.
Further reading: WAMU article on MLK Memorial opening to the public
I was one year old on August 28, 1963. Too young to remember the speech when it was originally delivered, yet it became deeply etched in the DNA of my entire generation, even those of us who were babies when Dr. King actually delivered it. His dream was for us. I’m white yet I feel his dream included me. He dreamed of black children and white children together, no “separate but equal”, just equal. To this day, I cannot listen to that profoundly stirring speech without tearing up. So much of his dream has been realized, just as he envisioned it from the “mountaintop”. He would be (and I imagine he is, looking down on events such as the inauguration of the nation’s first African-American president) so gratified and glad of that. Yet so very much is left to be done, not just for people of color, but for all oppressed people. Dr. King deeply cared about his specific people, African-Americans, yet he also clearly saw the non-violent fight for civil rights and freedom as a universal struggle. If any are not free, none are truly free. As Dick Gregory once said: “Oppression is more detrimental to the oppressor than it is to the oppressed.” A society and a world that tolerates violence, let alone encourages it in any way(s), against any group will never be healthy, will never be truly free.
In our own country and in our world, there is so much of Dr. King’s dream, so much of the work of it, left to do for those of us who were one year old or not even born yet when he gave his “I Have a Dream” speech. Just focusing on our country (if I panned out to the entire world, that would make for a LONG blog), it is hard to know where to start and easy to get extremely discouraged. There is so much inequality, so much hatred, so much bigotry. Inequality takes many forms. There is inequality in the law as, for example, gay people cannot marry in many states, which is a clear, classic denial of civil rights. Separate but equal water fountains were never really equal, nor is a civil union really the same thing as a marriage certificate. Failed private corporations are bailed out with tax dollars while children live in poverty and elected officials at all levels try to slash and burn programs like Medicaid, Headstart and WIC that help them. I WANT my taxes to go to our children, not to failed corporations like AIG. Our government wants to subsidize new nuclear plants but decimate public education, Social Security and Medicare. In other words, private corporations come first in our society, actual human citizens of the country are a distant second.
I think that Dr. King would see all of this as part of the struggle, as the ongoing work we need to do to fully realize the dream. Folks, we are nowhere near done. As my mom often says about various and sundry things, “Thank God we’re this far!”, yet while it is important to acknowledge how far we’ve come, it is even more important to honor Dr. King’s dream by honestly seeing that we are nowhere near done. There is hatred, there is bullying, there is oppression, there is violence, there is an ever-widening chasm between rich and poor, there is disparity in our laws. There is still “separate but equal”, it just takes new forms. We have to see it with clarity and fight it with the same “soul force”, the same creative, non-violent means that visionary, inspiring, effective leaders like Dr. King and Gandhi employed.
Are the days of marching in the streets, hand in hand, standing one for all and all for one, over? No. As Dr. King said in 1963, this is “not an end, but a beginning”.
Further reading: WAMU article on MLK Memorial opening to the public
Friday, December 10, 2010
Hateful "Church" Plans to Protest Elizabeth Edwards' Funeral: At what point does free speech become harassment?
I am horrified to hear that the profoundly hateful, sick Westboro Baptist Church plans to "protest" Elizabeth Edwards' funeral:
Westboro Baptist Church to Protest Edwards Funeral
I pray that their presence will not in any way impact Elizabeth Edwards' youngest two children. I hasten to add that, of course, I also pray that it doesn't impact her adult daughter, Cate, or any of the mourners. It's just that, upon learning of this horrible prospect, my first thoughts were of the two young children, Emma Claire and Jack. I am especially concerned for them and I hope it doesn't affect even one tiny aspect of the experience for them. This should be a day that helps them process their grief and makes them feel surrounded by love, comfort and family. I don't want hate or ugliness to even touch them, they've been through enough.
Of course, none of us wants to see hate or violence touch any child, ever, but for the possibility of it to happen on the day of their mother's funeral seems especially egregious and awful.
I am one of the staunchest defenders of the constitution and civil rights that you will ever come across. I am so grateful that we live in a free country, but to me, free speech ends at the point at which it becomes harassment. If these people get too close to the church and hurl hateful attacks at the mourners, they would be engaging in harassment, not free speech, wouldn't they? I mean, if they have to stay a certain distance back from the funeral venue and from the mourners, then I can see and must concede that tolerating them is the price we pay for free speech (even speech that most of us find abhorrent). But surely there is some law that would prevent them from verbally attacking mourners--including children--at a funeral?
I defend the right of everyone to engage in free speech, including speech that I find offensive and repugnant, because if they don't have the right to say what they want, I don't have the right to say what I want. However, at what point does free speech morph into harassment? When does a peaceful protest become a verbally violent attack? I think the point at which people disrupt mourners, including young children who have just lost their mother, attempting to enter and/or leave a funeral, by spewing hateful verbal attacks at them could conceivably be such a point. I think this "protest" just might fall outside the wide embrace of constitutional protection, as the rights of the mourners to gather peacefully, without being harassed, in order to grieve need to be protected, too.
If these hateful, sick people want to "protest" a certain distance away from the church, then I don't see how it can be stopped, frankly. However, surely there is some minimum distance they can be legally kept back from the funeral venue and/or from the mourners, isn't there? If not, there should be. There is free speech and then there is disruptive harassment. Where is the line?
I am going to pray very hard that their actions do not impact the Edwards family, particularly the two youngest children, in the slightest. If they do, I think it's a crime, literally...or it should be. It's harassment, it's stalking, it's something. Maybe John Edwards, an outstanding attorney, could make it a new cause of his to find some legal way to stop these folks from doing this at any future funerals, or if not stop them altogether, at least keep them from getting too close to the venue or the mourners.* Freedom of speech is a precious right, but the rights of mourners to attend a funeral in peace must also be respected and protected.
* Edited to add: I have learned that there is a current Supreme Court case (Snyder v. Phelps) pending regarding a past funeral protest by this "church" and whether it constituted free speech or harassment:
Washington Post article on Snyder v. Phelps
MSNBC.com article discusses Snyder v. Phelps
Westboro Baptist Church to Protest Edwards Funeral
I pray that their presence will not in any way impact Elizabeth Edwards' youngest two children. I hasten to add that, of course, I also pray that it doesn't impact her adult daughter, Cate, or any of the mourners. It's just that, upon learning of this horrible prospect, my first thoughts were of the two young children, Emma Claire and Jack. I am especially concerned for them and I hope it doesn't affect even one tiny aspect of the experience for them. This should be a day that helps them process their grief and makes them feel surrounded by love, comfort and family. I don't want hate or ugliness to even touch them, they've been through enough.
Of course, none of us wants to see hate or violence touch any child, ever, but for the possibility of it to happen on the day of their mother's funeral seems especially egregious and awful.
I am one of the staunchest defenders of the constitution and civil rights that you will ever come across. I am so grateful that we live in a free country, but to me, free speech ends at the point at which it becomes harassment. If these people get too close to the church and hurl hateful attacks at the mourners, they would be engaging in harassment, not free speech, wouldn't they? I mean, if they have to stay a certain distance back from the funeral venue and from the mourners, then I can see and must concede that tolerating them is the price we pay for free speech (even speech that most of us find abhorrent). But surely there is some law that would prevent them from verbally attacking mourners--including children--at a funeral?
I defend the right of everyone to engage in free speech, including speech that I find offensive and repugnant, because if they don't have the right to say what they want, I don't have the right to say what I want. However, at what point does free speech morph into harassment? When does a peaceful protest become a verbally violent attack? I think the point at which people disrupt mourners, including young children who have just lost their mother, attempting to enter and/or leave a funeral, by spewing hateful verbal attacks at them could conceivably be such a point. I think this "protest" just might fall outside the wide embrace of constitutional protection, as the rights of the mourners to gather peacefully, without being harassed, in order to grieve need to be protected, too.
If these hateful, sick people want to "protest" a certain distance away from the church, then I don't see how it can be stopped, frankly. However, surely there is some minimum distance they can be legally kept back from the funeral venue and/or from the mourners, isn't there? If not, there should be. There is free speech and then there is disruptive harassment. Where is the line?
I am going to pray very hard that their actions do not impact the Edwards family, particularly the two youngest children, in the slightest. If they do, I think it's a crime, literally...or it should be. It's harassment, it's stalking, it's something. Maybe John Edwards, an outstanding attorney, could make it a new cause of his to find some legal way to stop these folks from doing this at any future funerals, or if not stop them altogether, at least keep them from getting too close to the venue or the mourners.* Freedom of speech is a precious right, but the rights of mourners to attend a funeral in peace must also be respected and protected.
* Edited to add: I have learned that there is a current Supreme Court case (Snyder v. Phelps) pending regarding a past funeral protest by this "church" and whether it constituted free speech or harassment:
Washington Post article on Snyder v. Phelps
MSNBC.com article discusses Snyder v. Phelps
Friday, October 22, 2010
If Everyone With a Prejudice Was Fired for Honestly Admitting It, No One Would Have a Job
I think it is a crying shame that NPR fired long-time journalist and commentator Juan Williams yesterday for honestly sharing a prejudice. What he said was indeed expressing a prejudice, there is no doubt about that, but it is only once we all start being honest with ourselves and in our conversations about our prejudices that we can see them for what they are and work on them. Feelings are never right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, it is how we choose to act on our feelings that counts. Juan Williams is not a bigot, in fact, he is a champion of civil rights and fairness for all. Every single one of us has prejudices. Should we just never express them and hide them away in the closet? There is a truism often quoted in 12-step programs that says "You are only as sick as your secrets." In other words, only by being honest with ourselves and others can we be healthy, and this applies, I think, not only to individuals but to society. Pretending we aren't afraid of something, someone or some group only makes the fear grow darker and more powerful. Acknowledging it, owning it and exploring it takes the power from fear and empowers us to choose how we act.
What Juan Williams specifically said was admitting a fear. He didn't say the fear was fair, in fact, I think the whole point was that he was admitting a prejudice. We would all be healthier as individuals and a nation if we searched our souls and did the same. What he actually said is that, when he is on a plane, if he sees someone in Muslim "garb" (his word), he feels fear. That is indeed a prejudice, as just because someone is wearing the clothing of their culture and/or their religion, it certainly doesn't mean they are a terrorist with intentions to blow up an airplane. Juan's feeling of fear in that situation is both prejudiced and somewhat irrational. Yet it is his feeling and feelings don't have to be fair or entirely (or even partially) rational. I said it before but it definitely bears repeating: feelings are feelings, it is how we choose to act on them that counts.
Juan Williams has consistently stood for civil rights, fairness and justice in his career, and he is also very honest. Unfortunately, he was unjustly fired yesterday for just that refreshing honesty that our society so desperately needs to be healthy. The most disgusting part to me was when the person from NPR who fired him said that his remark should be between him and "his psychiatrist". What an ugly, ignorant, uncalled for, classless attack. She's the one who made an inappropriate comment, an attacking, ugly comment. Juan Williams, on the other hand, was honestly admitting a fear and prejudice, in order to further the dialog about it in our country.
From earlier blogs of mine, for example, when I came out strongly for the mosque to be built near Ground Zero, you all know I stand against discrimination, for fairness, and passionately for civil rights. That is precisely why I do NOT have a problem with, and indeed actually applaud, anyone who can admit a prejudice. We all have them. Admitting a prejudiced feeling does not equate to behaving with discrimination in our actions. It doesn't mean that person is a bigot. Far from it! Admitting a prejudice means that person is honest with themselves and the world, and is willing to face their fears, which is the only way to move past them to a tolerant world.
What Juan Williams specifically said was admitting a fear. He didn't say the fear was fair, in fact, I think the whole point was that he was admitting a prejudice. We would all be healthier as individuals and a nation if we searched our souls and did the same. What he actually said is that, when he is on a plane, if he sees someone in Muslim "garb" (his word), he feels fear. That is indeed a prejudice, as just because someone is wearing the clothing of their culture and/or their religion, it certainly doesn't mean they are a terrorist with intentions to blow up an airplane. Juan's feeling of fear in that situation is both prejudiced and somewhat irrational. Yet it is his feeling and feelings don't have to be fair or entirely (or even partially) rational. I said it before but it definitely bears repeating: feelings are feelings, it is how we choose to act on them that counts.
Juan Williams has consistently stood for civil rights, fairness and justice in his career, and he is also very honest. Unfortunately, he was unjustly fired yesterday for just that refreshing honesty that our society so desperately needs to be healthy. The most disgusting part to me was when the person from NPR who fired him said that his remark should be between him and "his psychiatrist". What an ugly, ignorant, uncalled for, classless attack. She's the one who made an inappropriate comment, an attacking, ugly comment. Juan Williams, on the other hand, was honestly admitting a fear and prejudice, in order to further the dialog about it in our country.
From earlier blogs of mine, for example, when I came out strongly for the mosque to be built near Ground Zero, you all know I stand against discrimination, for fairness, and passionately for civil rights. That is precisely why I do NOT have a problem with, and indeed actually applaud, anyone who can admit a prejudice. We all have them. Admitting a prejudiced feeling does not equate to behaving with discrimination in our actions. It doesn't mean that person is a bigot. Far from it! Admitting a prejudice means that person is honest with themselves and the world, and is willing to face their fears, which is the only way to move past them to a tolerant world.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Florida to Allow Gay Adoption: a Great Day for Civil Rights, Children and True Family Values
I was very heartened to learn yesterday that the overturning of Florida’s 30-year-old, wrong-headed law prohibiting gay people from adopting in the state has been upheld. This is a victory for our constitution, for civil rights and for the children of Florida.
There are so many kids in the system who desperately need loving homes. Under what was, in my opinion, the unconstitutional ban on gay adoption in the state of Florida, gay people were allowed to foster but not adopt, which makes no sense. If a single person or couple is evaluated by the state and found to meet the requirements for fostering children, why can’t they also adopt? There is absolutely no reason other than ignorance, prejudice and/or bigotry against gay people to deny them the same rights as straight folks, and to deny the kids of Florida a far bigger pool of potential permanent, loving homes.
When I was in 10th grade, I had a great sociology teacher. He was great because he wanted to teach us to THINK. Years later, I got my degree in cultural anthropology and sociology. Coincidence? You be the judge. But I digress. One day, this teacher somehow started our class on a discussion/argument that got extremely heated, and I recall that it was basically yours truly here against the entire rest of the class, especially one girl who was extremely worked up and vehement about her argument/point, which was, in my strong opinion then and now, based entirely on ignorance and prejudice. Don’t ask me exactly how or why this teacher, bless him, got his class of 10th graders arguing about prejudice against gay people back in, gosh, when was this, 1977? 1977! The thought of gay adoption, let alone gay rights of any kind, back then was completely beyond RADICAL, yet somehow, he had us talking about it. I think maybe it started from a general discussion on prejudice and discrimination in society, but however it started, the argument between me and the class ended up being about, as I recall it, either “Why shouldn’t homosexual people be allowed to have kids just like heterosexual people?”, or it might have even just been (remember, this was 1977) “Can homosexual people be trusted around children?" I can’t remember what exact question got this argument going but I clearly remember that class because that was one time in my life when I stood up for what I believed in and did not back down, even though the entire class was sneering at my point of view and, like I said, this one ferocious girl was just FURIOUSLY up in my grill, attacking me vehemently over it.
Basically, this girl kept equating homosexuality to pedophilia (although I’m sure she didn’t know that word), saying that gay people are dangerous around kids because they might molest them. She kept using the word “perverted” and “perverts” and arguing that these “perverts” couldn’t be trusted around children, OBVIOUSLY. Every time she asserted that, I kept responding that a homosexual person is no more likely to molest a child than is a heterosexual person. There are heterosexuals who would molest children, and there are homosexuals who would molest children, but being one or the other as a sexual orientation doesn’t have anything to do with the likelihood of molesting children!
Well! This girl just got more and more FURIOUS with me, like how could I be so STUPID not to get her brilliant (not—try totally ignorant and bigoted) point that, apparently, all gay people are predisposed to be child molesters. And the more she kept insisting upon that, and literally getting in my face about it and egging on the entire class into attacking me, the more I would not back down and kept saying that homosexuality and pedophilia/being a child molester have NOTHING to do with one another!!!!! God knows there are plenty of heterosexual child molesters! Sexual orientation, one way or the other, does not equate to pedophilia.
The reason I just harked back to that long ago, incredibly heated-n-lengthy argument in that great teacher’s 10th grade sociology class (and he, by the way, just sat back and did not intervene, as I recall, but the entire time, I felt like he was really proud of me, which helped me continue to take on the entire class and that one worked-up, intimidating-to-beat-the-band loon in particular) is because I think that, even though that was 1977 and this is 2010, unfortunately, those misconceptions and prejudices still remain to a degree in our society. While we have come a very long way in terms of attitudes towards homosexuality and how homosexuals are treated under the law, I think there is still the idea that somehow gay people are not to be trusted around children, which just makes NO sense to me. I’ll say it again: a gay person is no more likely to be a pedophile than a straight person is. So that argument against gay adoption just makes no sense.
There are other so-called “arguments” against gay adoption (and gay marriage and other gay rights), of course, but break them down into their essential components and they are all based on bigotry against gay people. Period.
The real facts on the ground are that children need loving parents. There are many decent, loving gay folks who would love to be parents. Why not add to the pool of potential adopters, when we have such a staggering number of children languishing away in state care, in the foster system? But as compelling as that argument is, it too misses the main point in a way: the main point doesn’t have to do with numbers of kids waiting for homes, it has to do with what is right, morally and legally, and what is right is that ANYONE who is a decent, loving human being and has the necessary means, support system and ability to parent a child should have the opportunity to adopt a waiting child. More importantly, any child who is waiting for a permanent family should never be denied the chance to have one if one is there! I hope that the state will see sense, and not appeal this. Surely they want all the children in their care now and in the future to have every opportunity to be adopted into loving families. That’s what I call true “family values”.
Further Reading:
Miami Herald article of 9/23/2010
New York Times article of 9/22/2010
ACLU press release of 9/23/2010 on commondreams.org
There are so many kids in the system who desperately need loving homes. Under what was, in my opinion, the unconstitutional ban on gay adoption in the state of Florida, gay people were allowed to foster but not adopt, which makes no sense. If a single person or couple is evaluated by the state and found to meet the requirements for fostering children, why can’t they also adopt? There is absolutely no reason other than ignorance, prejudice and/or bigotry against gay people to deny them the same rights as straight folks, and to deny the kids of Florida a far bigger pool of potential permanent, loving homes.
When I was in 10th grade, I had a great sociology teacher. He was great because he wanted to teach us to THINK. Years later, I got my degree in cultural anthropology and sociology. Coincidence? You be the judge. But I digress. One day, this teacher somehow started our class on a discussion/argument that got extremely heated, and I recall that it was basically yours truly here against the entire rest of the class, especially one girl who was extremely worked up and vehement about her argument/point, which was, in my strong opinion then and now, based entirely on ignorance and prejudice. Don’t ask me exactly how or why this teacher, bless him, got his class of 10th graders arguing about prejudice against gay people back in, gosh, when was this, 1977? 1977! The thought of gay adoption, let alone gay rights of any kind, back then was completely beyond RADICAL, yet somehow, he had us talking about it. I think maybe it started from a general discussion on prejudice and discrimination in society, but however it started, the argument between me and the class ended up being about, as I recall it, either “Why shouldn’t homosexual people be allowed to have kids just like heterosexual people?”, or it might have even just been (remember, this was 1977) “Can homosexual people be trusted around children?" I can’t remember what exact question got this argument going but I clearly remember that class because that was one time in my life when I stood up for what I believed in and did not back down, even though the entire class was sneering at my point of view and, like I said, this one ferocious girl was just FURIOUSLY up in my grill, attacking me vehemently over it.
Basically, this girl kept equating homosexuality to pedophilia (although I’m sure she didn’t know that word), saying that gay people are dangerous around kids because they might molest them. She kept using the word “perverted” and “perverts” and arguing that these “perverts” couldn’t be trusted around children, OBVIOUSLY. Every time she asserted that, I kept responding that a homosexual person is no more likely to molest a child than is a heterosexual person. There are heterosexuals who would molest children, and there are homosexuals who would molest children, but being one or the other as a sexual orientation doesn’t have anything to do with the likelihood of molesting children!
Well! This girl just got more and more FURIOUS with me, like how could I be so STUPID not to get her brilliant (not—try totally ignorant and bigoted) point that, apparently, all gay people are predisposed to be child molesters. And the more she kept insisting upon that, and literally getting in my face about it and egging on the entire class into attacking me, the more I would not back down and kept saying that homosexuality and pedophilia/being a child molester have NOTHING to do with one another!!!!! God knows there are plenty of heterosexual child molesters! Sexual orientation, one way or the other, does not equate to pedophilia.
The reason I just harked back to that long ago, incredibly heated-n-lengthy argument in that great teacher’s 10th grade sociology class (and he, by the way, just sat back and did not intervene, as I recall, but the entire time, I felt like he was really proud of me, which helped me continue to take on the entire class and that one worked-up, intimidating-to-beat-the-band loon in particular) is because I think that, even though that was 1977 and this is 2010, unfortunately, those misconceptions and prejudices still remain to a degree in our society. While we have come a very long way in terms of attitudes towards homosexuality and how homosexuals are treated under the law, I think there is still the idea that somehow gay people are not to be trusted around children, which just makes NO sense to me. I’ll say it again: a gay person is no more likely to be a pedophile than a straight person is. So that argument against gay adoption just makes no sense.
There are other so-called “arguments” against gay adoption (and gay marriage and other gay rights), of course, but break them down into their essential components and they are all based on bigotry against gay people. Period.
The real facts on the ground are that children need loving parents. There are many decent, loving gay folks who would love to be parents. Why not add to the pool of potential adopters, when we have such a staggering number of children languishing away in state care, in the foster system? But as compelling as that argument is, it too misses the main point in a way: the main point doesn’t have to do with numbers of kids waiting for homes, it has to do with what is right, morally and legally, and what is right is that ANYONE who is a decent, loving human being and has the necessary means, support system and ability to parent a child should have the opportunity to adopt a waiting child. More importantly, any child who is waiting for a permanent family should never be denied the chance to have one if one is there! I hope that the state will see sense, and not appeal this. Surely they want all the children in their care now and in the future to have every opportunity to be adopted into loving families. That’s what I call true “family values”.
Further Reading:
Miami Herald article of 9/23/2010
New York Times article of 9/22/2010
ACLU press release of 9/23/2010 on commondreams.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)