In today's pages: Stellar speeches and the future of gay rights
Who can possibly stop talking election yet? Not the Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division. Both the editorial board and Wayne State University professor John Corvino predict that, as society gains a deeper understanding of and appreciation for gay rights, there's a good chance voters will repeal the newly passed Proposition 8 in coming years. The board calls on the African American community, which voted heavily in favor of the gay-marriage ban, to remember the shared struggle of civil rights and how once society viewed interracial marriage as ungodly -- a few decades before the child of an interracial couple would be elected president.
The editorial board also applauds both presidential candidates' speeches on election night. After a long absence, the board says, the John McCain who reaches across the aisle to make things work, and who puts service to his country, showed himself. And Barack Obama reminded Americans of something they also haven't heard in a long time -- that success depends on people giving to their country as well as taking from it.
On the other side of the fold, Patt Morrison wonders whether party labels of outlived their usefulness:
How meaningful and relevant are candidates' political parties anymore? When a New England Republican can be more progressive than a Texas Democrat, when millions regard themselves as independents and occupy the takeout-menu middle on political issues, why do we need to belong to parties? Why red, why blue, why even purple, when there's the big deluxe Crayola box to choose from?
In a burst of free advice for Obama, former Secretary of State Warren Christopher offers trandition guidance to the president-elect and Rosa Brooks has ideas for how he can mend the country's global relations.
AP Photo/Paul Sakuma
Let’s quit walking around the pink elephant in the room. If you don’t view homosexuality as sin (and doing so is not about hating homosexuals because we all sin), then more than likely, you are going to have the views of California’s “No on 8″ supporters.
So, there you have it! The fundamental difference, one side believes homosexuality is acceptable for all of society, the other side - Yes on 8 - believes that homosexuality is a sin and should not be embraced by society.
Hate gays? No. Hate the sin. Now you can debate your view that homosexual behavior is not sin…and that is your choice, your understanding, and your belief. Hate those that believe that way? No.
Will the acceptance of gay marriage effect our society? Yes. Will all people understand that concept? No. It goes back to whether or not you believe homosexuality is a sin or not.
And even before that, whether you believe in the concept of sin or not. For if you don’t believe that sin exists, and you believe that truth is your own relevance, then this discussion is mute.
Do I fear gays, or gay marriage, or anyone siding with the normalization of homosexuality? No. In fact, your orientation has no basis on my desire to be friends with you or anyone.
I fear the Lord.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” - Proverbs 1:7
Posted by: Alexander | November 09, 2008 at 08:09 AM
To everyone who says that gays are defined by nothing more than what they do in bed, I'd like to remind everyone that black are defined by nothing more than skin colour -- something just as trivial and inconsequential when we're talking about human rights. No, gays didnt endure slavery. Instead, for centuries, we were treated as less than human, turned into the whipping-boys-du-jour whenever a "political elader" needed a quick prop, been subject to gross injustice by the legal system even as recently as 1985 (when a bunch of teenage boys in NYState got off with the murder of a man in a park because they "thought" he might be gay and their lvies were threatened), or, going back way there in history, even used as kindling during the witch-burning fires of the Spanish Inquisition (hence, the term "faggot") -- shall I go on?
If you cant appreciate things like that and see Prop 8 for the bigotry that it truly is, you have learned nothing about civil rights. Go tell that to your church, and then pray for a little forgiveness.
Posted by: Sean Martin | November 07, 2008 at 05:39 AM
After a long absence, the board says, the John McCain who reaches across the aisle to make things work, and who puts service to his country, [sic] showed himself.
Yes, John McCain was sharp as a tack, calm under pressure and magnanimous right up around March of this year -- right about when he clinched the Republican nomination. Then he began seemed to be going senile and developing serious grumpy old man syndrome. He was cured suddenly late Tuesday night; the first 'healing' performed by our president elect?
Posted by: Mitchell Young | November 07, 2008 at 02:33 AM
It is undeniably true that huge disparities exist between the decades of enslavement and murder of African Americans in our countries history, and the plight of gay Americans. But equating the struggle of gay Americans to overcome bigotry and find equality in America to the struggle for equal rights for AA's is not a stretch. Gay American's have now become the socially acceptable target of discrimination and bigotry, and AA's seem perfectly willing to take up the bludgeon once used on them, and use it on us. As a champion of AA's civil rights, I feel betrayed.
Gay people have faced our share of violence because of something we cannot change. Or have we already forgotten Matthew Sheppard? Let's refresh: Matthew Shepard, a 21 year old college student, was robbed, pistol whipped, tortured, tied to a fence in a remote, rural area, and left to die because he was gay. That sort of hatred and violence is perpetrated against gays in this country, and all over the world, EVERY DAY. Each time some religious group decides to crusade against the equal rights of gay people, the incidence of violence GOES UP.
As someone who worked hard to elect our first AA president, I feel deeply discouraged by the 70% of AA's who made my business their business, and who allowed themselves to be manipulated by lies and fear instead of standing up for equal rights. They should know better, and I cannot help but feel betrayed.
Posted by: mysticalsister | November 07, 2008 at 12:55 AM
Umm, Rob? "Opinion Manufacturing Division" is a lighthearted way of referring to a bunch of writers as if they were on an assembly line. We "manufacture" opinion pieces in the way Ford manufactures cars. You can buy our views or not. In fact, they're free, so you don't even have to pay for them. But we're not manufacturing your opinions. We're offering you ours. Now, you can argue that we should be ashamed of our opinions, but please -- don't try to make us regret the jokes we make about ourselves.
Posted by: Jon Healey | November 06, 2008 at 06:23 PM
Why is there no shame in talking about the Times' Opinion Manufacturing Division? It's not for a minority of media personalities to tell the rest of America what to think. I suppose the only good thing is if you keep referring to the TOMD it will at least be overt enough for people to make up their own minds. Obama's only been in a couple of days and already the thought-controllers are out in force.
Posted by: Rob P | November 06, 2008 at 06:01 PM
As a child of the south over fifty years ago, hate and bigotry against non-white people was accepted. Those were the days of the “white only restaurants and water fountains”, “back of the bus” and “separate but equal” mentality. Over the years my parents went to great pains to educate us about the evils of such bigotry and discrimination even as we were surrounded by it. I thought over time that most of my fellow citizens had learned that hate and bigotry are obscene and morally repugnant. I was wrong. As it turns out those who would spew hatred and bigotry were just looking for a new group of people to discriminate against. They picked a group that even non-whites could agree to hate and went after them with a vengeance. Set the way back Sherman because we’re all going back to the good old days of separate but equal whether we like it or not.
Thank you Prop 8 for showing us that over half of the voting population in the once great state of California are hateful ignorant homophobic bigots hell bent on bringing discrimination back.
Posted by: Dave Grant | November 06, 2008 at 04:14 PM
The struggle for gay equality is not analogous to the black civil rights movement. My ancestors never suffered under slavery or Jim Crow. The ancestors of African-Americans did. That’s a huge difference, and as a gay person, I do not want to link these sexual identity equality issues like gay marriage — for which we’ve taken a beating in four states — with the violent, centuries-long history of racial discrimination in America.
African-Americans suffered four centuries of slavery and political disenfranchisement in this land; homosexuality, and its formation as a social and cultural identity, is a completely different ball of wax. The sooner the gay community realizes that, the sooner we will be better able to hone our arguments to those in the African-American community who, rightly, take umbrage at such false linkages.
As a white gay person, I do not want to offend the intelligence of straight African-Americans by equating these two separate issues. What I would like to do — and what I wish the gay community and all communities would do — is impress upon others that we have more to gain by constantly examining, in depth, the origins of our malice toward one another, than trying to forge cheap and facile political coalitions based upon supposed mutual political interests. The Democrats and the mainstream media, for instance, falsely believe that they have a mutual interest in simply destroying the life of Senator Ted Stevens — truly portraying him as one of the most evil men in our society — for his supposed gift ban infractions with respect to his A-frame cabin in Girdwood, Alaska. The malice toward this straight, white, conservative man is palpable in virtually all outlets of the mainstream media. Where the heck did that malice come from? Is it really justice to even feel that? Where will this level of malice lead our nation?
As I struggle for my equal rights in this country, those are the questions I will be asking. Never, never will I ask my black fellow Americans to equate the struggle for black civil rights with gay civil rights. It’s beside the point, and totally off-point.
If our new president can move our country toward confronting the root causes of our malice, it would hands-down be the greatest gift he could bestow upon our nation.
Timothy Rieger
Posted by: Timothy Rieger | November 06, 2008 at 04:04 PM