Defending Same-Sex Marriage

by Dick Mac

I wonder if I will be forced to get gay-married if all the states allow it.

I mean, will they eventually require it?

Will I have to be married to my wife and married to a husband?

If you listen to "conservatives" you will hear that gay-marriage is the end of the world as we know it. Our modern day Sodoms and Gomorrahs, stretching from sea to shining sea, will be over-run with homosexuals forcing heterosexuals to change their sexual orientation and be 'gay'!

Regular people (non-conservatives) know that the gay marriage agenda looks like this:

There is no wild conspiracy to wipe-out religion or interfere with straight peoples' right to divorce.  Straight people will still be allowed to have 72 hour marriages that ensure the sanctity of the institution.  No regular people (gay or straight) want to remove a straight person's right to be married for 72 hours.

Regular people also tend to suspect that when a "conservative" politician or man of the cloth (of any stripe) gets all up-in-arms about the rights of homosexuals, he has generally got a boyfriend or two stashed out-of-town, or goes to the library a lot to pee, or hangs around gymnasiums, just a little more than others.  The list of anti-gay politicians caught (figuratively) with a cock in his mouth is far too long to include here.

The debate about gay marriage has been quite a stage for "conservatives"; but, the debate has also revealed some extraordinary people.  Two of whom are pretty hot!

Brendon Ayanbadejo

Brendon Ayanbadejo, a father of two and a linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens football team, has advocated for same-sex marriage.

According to his wikipedia page:

"He has advocated for the passage of the FIT Kids Act, federal legislation that would require school districts to report on students' physical activity and to give youngsters health and nutritional information. In 2009, Ayanbadejo advocated legalizing same-sex marriage. Ayanbadejo has taken action in support of marriage equality, filming a public service announcement for Marylanders for Marriage Equality in 2011, and donating Ravens tickets to a fundraiser for the same organization."

This, of course, makes "conservatives" crazy.  The last thing "conservatives" need is for really tough, masculine, butch, straight guys to support gay marriage.  "Conservatives" cultivate hatred by encouraging straight men to hate gay men.  Historically, they have been quite successful.

Times change.

Chris Kluwe

Chris Kluwe, a father of one girl, and a punter for the Minnesota Vikings football team, has also publicly advocated for same-sex marriage.

According to his wikipedia page:

"On September 7, 2012 Kluwe released a letter via sports website Deadspin he had sent to Maryland state assembly delegate Emmett Burns, defending the opinions of Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo and sharply criticizing Burns on his attempt to stifle Ayanbadejo's free speech. Ayanbadejo has been a vocal supporter of gay marriage and Burns had sent a letter requesting that the Ravens ownership "inhibit such expressions" by their employee."

Although they are both college-educated, hard-working, fit, attractive, open-minded men, there is no indication that they have joined forces to advocate together or that they are dating.  These are just two extraordinary men, who are kinda hot, too!

I think these two men, these athletes, these really hot straight guys, represent the majority of American citizens.

Of course, there are bigots who have to hate homosexuals.  And make no mistake, they are bigots.  Their discomfort with homosexuality (generally rooted in millenia-old religious writings) is their own personal problem - and bigotry is a personal problem, it might actually be a mental health issue.

And let's be clear:  everyone who opposes the rights of adult, American taxpayers to marry the person they love, is a bigot.  Yes, every single person who opposes gay marriage is a bigot.  There is no half-way here.  You either support the civil rights of your fellow citizens, or you don't.  Those who don't are bigots.

What brought these two kinda hot, heterosexual athletes together was an impressively bigoted and ill-advised letter written by Reverend Emmett C. Burns, Jr., delegate to the Maryland House -- a minister and an elected official.  In his letter, the good Reverend admonished the owner of the Baltimore Ravens, Steve Biscotti, to stifle the opinions of his players, specifically Ayanbadejo.

Yup!  An elected official, who is also a man of the cloth, wrote a letter in which - in black and white - he demanded that a business owner abridge the constitutional rights of his employees.

Remarkable.

A few days after the Reverend's attack on the Baltimore Ravens, Chris Kluwe was moved to write an open letter addressing the situation.  I know that "conservatives" will dismiss this letter because of the profanity. You see, profanity is OK when a "conservative" uses it, but is a disgrace when a regular person (a non-conservative) uses it.

Originally published at deadspin, the letter from Kluwe to the Reverend is reprinted here (without permission) for your enjoyment:

Dear Emmett C. Burns Jr.,

I find it inconceivable that you are an elected official of Maryland's state government. Your vitriolic hatred and bigotry make me ashamed and disgusted to think that you are in any way responsible for shaping policy at any level. The views you espouse neglect to consider several fundamental key points, which I will outline in great detail (you may want to hire an intern to help you with the longer words):

1. As I suspect you have not read the Constitution, I would like to remind you that the very first, the VERY FIRST Amendment in this founding document deals with the freedom of speech, particularly the abridgment of said freedom. By using your position as an elected official (when referring to your constituents so as to implicitly threaten the Ravens organization) to state that the Ravens should "inhibit such expressions from your employees," more specifically Brendon Ayanbadejo, not only are you clearly violating the First Amendment, you also come across as a narcissistic fromunda stain. What on earth would possess you to be so mind-boggingly stupid? It baffles me that a man such as yourself, a man who relies on that same First Amendment to pursue your own religious studies without fear of persecution from the state, could somehow justify stifling another person's right to speech. To call that hypocritical would be to do a disservice to the word. Mindfucking obscenely hypocritical starts to approach it a little bit.

2. "Many of your fans are opposed to such a view and feel it has no place in a sport that is strictly for pride, entertainment, and excitement." Holy fucking shitballs. Did you seriously just say that, as someone who's "deeply involved in government task forces on the legacy of slavery in Maryland"? Have you not heard of Kenny Washington? Jackie Robinson? As recently as 1962 the NFL still had segregation, which was only done away with by brave athletes and coaches daring to speak their mind and do the right thing, and you're going to say that political views have "no place in a sport"? I can't even begin to fathom the cognitive dissonance that must be coursing through your rapidly addled mind right now; the mental gymnastics your brain has to tortuously contort itself through to make such a preposterous statement are surely worthy of an Olympic gold medal (the Russian judge gives you a 10 for "beautiful oppressionism").

3. This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you'll start thinking about penis? "Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!" Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)

I can assure you that gay people getting married will have zero effect on your life. They won't come into your house and steal your children. They won't magically turn you into a lustful cockmonster. They won't even overthrow the government in an orgy of hedonistic debauchery because all of a sudden they have the same legal rights as the other 90 percent of our population—rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children. You know what having these rights will make gays? Full-fledged American citizens just like everyone else, with the freedom to pursue happiness and all that entails. Do the civil-rights struggles of the past 200 years mean absolutely nothing to you?

In closing, I would like to say that I hope this letter, in some small way, causes you to reflect upon the magnitude of the colossal foot in mouth clusterfuck you so brazenly unleashed on a man whose only crime was speaking out for something he believed in. Best of luck in the next election; I'm fairly certain you might need it.

Sincerely,
Chris Kluwe

P.S. I've also been vocal as hell about the issue of gay marriage so you can take your "I know of no other NFL player who has done what Mr. Ayanbadejo is doing" and shove it in your close-minded, totally lacking in empathy piehole and choke on it. Asshole.

I know!  Remarkable!

Having come under such attack from many quarters, the Reverend has retreated (as "conservatives" do) behind his Constitutional rights.  We can only hope he will be defeated in his next election.

I have to say:  Thank you, Reverend Emmett C. Burns, Jr., for opening your mouth, inserting your foot, and bringing these two smart, hard-working, kinda hot straight guys into the spotlight.

I would gay marry these men, if I wasn't already straight married!

What's Your Pattern?

 by Dick Mac

Taking a public stand on a political issue can be dangerous, especially to your reputation.

I know (and I am reminded repeatedly) that my vocal opposition to, and criticism of, the "conservatism" developing in America, since 1980, and its complementary economic policies, hurts (destroys?) my credibility with those who may not know me well.

I have nothing to lose by taking a public position.  I am not a business owner who must tread lightly around the hot topics of the day, lest I offend my customers,  I am not a candidate for public (or private) office, so having a reputation for being dramatic in my opposition tho things with which I disagree is not an impediment to my progress.  I am not shy or withdrawn, so I am taking little risk to practice and talk about the courage of my convictions.

What happens to those with businesses and those running for elective office when they take a public position that is unpopular?

During the recent campaign in North Carolina for a referendum on the civil rights of a minority, presented such an opportunity for Bob Page.

(One might point-out, correctly, that if civil rights are at hand, then the public does not get to vote on them.  They are either civil rights or they are not.  But, that is beside the point.)

Bob Page owns Replacements Limited, a company that sells replacement pieces for china patterns that can be hard to find.  When I chipped the edge of a tea cup from my Lenox china, I found Replacements Limited.  It was so long ago, that transactions were handled by mail!  Yes, snail mail!

Bob Page is a homosexual.  He has not been an activist, per se, in the gay community; but I get the sense that Bob Page didn't really hide his sexual preference.

Four Fortune 500 companies are based in North Carolina:  Bank of America, Duke Energy, VF Corporation and Lowe’s.  All four companies, although they spend a lot of money on political campaigning and electioneering across the country, remained conspicuously silent during this campaign.

So write down that list!  These companies refused to support the civil rights of gay North Carolinians:

One of America's major welfare recipients, Bank of America, believes that its homosexual customers in North Carolina should be denied their civil rights.

Duke Energy believes that its homosexual customers in North Carolina should be denied their civil rights.

Clothing manufacturer (Lee, Wrangler, Timberland, Vans, North Face), VF Corporation, believes that its homosexual customers in North Carolina should be denied their civil rights.

The home improvement store chain, Lowe's, believes that its homosexual customers in North Carolina should be denied their civil rights.

You can contact each of them by clicking the links above.

One nationally-known (internationally-known) company did take a position in support of homosexual taxpayers by taking a position on Amendment One.

Replacements Limited, Bob Page's company, was public and aggressive about supporting the rights of same-sex couples to marry.  There was backlash.  Many customers responded angrily and have promised to pull their business, and some responded with threats of violence and death.

So, Replacements Limited is experiencing a dip in sales because they support the civil rights of homosexuals.  There is a campaign against Bob Page because of his new-found activism.  He could lose a lot of money for having the courage of his convictions.

On America's wacky-fringe-right-wing, people are encouraged by their hateful leaders to band together and cause economic hardship to companies with whom they disagree.  The tactic is often successful.

On America's wacky-fringe-left-wing, people are constantly told by their leaders and media that boycotts do not work.  Which is incorrect.  Sadly, this belief that boycotts are ineffective has put an end to the public boycotting of bad corporations by progressive Americans.

You can find, I am certain, a homosexual complaining about the gay marriage ban while shopping for Timberland boots.  You likely can find a progressive black activist imploring others to take a progressive, if unpopular position, while consuming San Pellagrino water, or some other Nestle product.  You likely can find a homosexual using a Bank of America ATM machine and engage her in a discussion about same-sex marriage, and you would likely learn that her position is contradictory to that of the bank with whom she does business.  Yet, she continues to do business with that bank.

It is hard to boycott companies that do bad things, and it takes effort to find out which products are manufactured or distributed by bad companies.

In this case, we know for a fact that Bob Page's Replacements Limited company has an excellent position on the rights of homosexuals, the right of same-sex couples to marry.  We know that Replacements Limited uses some of its profits to protect the civil rights of homosexuals.

We need to support Bob Page by shopping at Replacements Limited.

Perhaps you need salt & pepper shakers, or a creamer, or a serving bowl.  Perhaps you could buy it from Replacements Limited.

• Read about Bob Page in the New York Times:  A Company's Stand for Gay Marriage, and Its Cost
  
• Shop at:  Replacements Limited

Don't Ask

by Dick Mac

The civil rights movement that culminated in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 began, in earnest, with the bus boycott sparked by press coverage of Rosa Parks' arrest for refusing to give-up her seat to a white person, in 1955.

The dogged determination and hard work of African-American leaders was rewarded with major federal legislation to protect black Americans, in less than ten year.

Homosexuals launched their movement for civil rights a few years later in 1969 and within forty years, two pieces of major federal legislation have been passed that specifically limit the civil rights of homosexuals.

Democrats can take credit for all three pieces of legislation: Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA64), and Bill Clinton signed Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

What do you think the United States would have looked like from 1965 - 1995, if the CRA64 had not been enacted and additional legislation had been passed further limiting the civil rights of black Americans? How do you think black America would have reacted to this after forty years of fighting for civil rights?

How would liberal white America have reacted? If the Democrats had failed to pass CRA64, then passed the Miscegenation Act of 1970 and the Separate But Equal Education Act of 1985, would white America have allowed it?

I think they would not. I think that many white Americans, especially educators, lawyers, businessmen, and clerics, would have stood to be counted among those outraged that any government would consider limiting the rights of fellow Americans. I think voters in places like Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, California, Oregon, and Washington, along with voters in some major metropolitan areas and college towns in-between would have been outraged and the Democrats would have never seen another day as a viable political party.

I know scores of white Americans who would have been so outraged, that they would be marching in the streets.

So why is it that the Democrats are given carte blanche to discriminate against homosexuals for a full forty years after that civil rights movement began? Why are otherwise kind and open-minded Americans allowing the Democrats to represent them when the Democrats have done so much to hurt homosexual Americans?

I know the argument that "well the Republicans are much worse." Honestly, though: I don't think Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, or George H.W. Bush would have ever signed a piece of legislation like DADT or DOMA - I think they would have told their party in Congress to drop it like a hot potato and find another way to reach their goals - that no self-respecting politician who likes to promote personal freedom (however disingenuously) would ever sign legislation limiting the rights of white, middle-class taxpayers.

Now, Bush II is a different story, and we will never know if he would have signed those laws; but he didn't have to, because Bill Clinton did.

DADT and DOMA are still on the books. Barack Obama promises that DADT will be repealed on his watch; but DOMA stays.

Let's go back to my scenario about CRA64 never being enacted, but anti-black marriage and education laws being passed. Imagine if a future president then repealed the anti-black education law, but left in place the marriage law with no plan to repeal it. Would that be considered acceptable?

"Why," I ask my liberal, educated, Democrat-supporting friends is this an acceptable situation?

I know: Don't Ask!

I Support Ceara Sturgis

by Dick Mac

Ceara Sturgis is a young woman whose choice of clothing styles has always leaned towards the masculine. She wears "boys clothes" and is most comfortable that way.

She wore "boys clothes" as a pre-teen and a tween and a teenager, and as she approaches the end of her teenage years, she still wears "boys clothes."

Obviously, any clothes owned by Ceara are girls' clothes. She is a girl and she owns them, and that makes them a girls' clothes. The notion that I might see these same clothes in an advertisement or on a mannequin and think of them as boys' clothes matters for nothing. They are purchased by a girl, they are in her wardrobe, she wears them and they are girls' clothes now.

At the high school she attends in Mississippi, high school seniors are required to "dress" in a particular way: the boys are put in a tuxedo jacket, dress shit and bow tie, and the girls are put in a drape.

Ceara posed in her drape and was not at all comfortable. She asked to pose in the tuxedo, the photographer got her re-seated and took a beautiful picture of her for the yearbook.

When someone in the school's administration saw the picture they decided to exclude her from the yearbook. It's not rocket science to conclude that this decision is unconstitutional and a violation of Ceara's civil rights.

Needless to say, and thankfully, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the issue to the federal courts.

This sort of discrimination has to stop.

Please support Ceara anyway you can.

I Support Ceara Sturgis on Facebook

District sued over yearbook

Support Ceara Sturgis: Yearbooks Must Include Everyone

Lost?

by Dick Mac

I feel lost.

If teabaggers and their leaders like Rand Paul get their way, we will roll-back the clocks to an earlier time in American commerce and culture.

I've been thinking about the teabagger notion that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which, for better or worse, spawned affirmative action) should apply only to the federal government and not to private industry.

What this means is that teabaggers think that only the Feds should be required to hire black people, and that private industry could remain all white (and Asian, of course).

They argue that this is not the case, that the marketplace will somehow magically eradicate racism; but, people who use their brains for more than analyzing television shows, and their knees for more than kneeling at the shrine of Reagan's genitalia, know that the marketplace is unable to control or regulate anything.

Teabaggers also believe in small government (whatever that is), which means that at the same time they think that American Blacks should only be protected in the workplace controlled by the Feds (that is, government employment), they are saying that the Federal government should be eliminated, effectively eliminating employment opportunities for Black Americans.

So, in this magic free-market world where racism is suddenly eradicated through the good-will and spiritual magnanimity of capitalism, where private industry is not required to employee anybody except Whites (and Asians), and the Federal government employs only elected officials and a military, where exactly are American Blacks supposed to earn a living?

The military?

Wow! Sounds like the draft-era practices of a racist military during the Vietnam War, where a greater percentage of American Blacks served on the front lines than did other Americans.

Shall all our elected officials be Black?

Let's take the Civil Rights Act to an absurd level (to match the absurdity of teabagging analyses) and say that all elected officials in the Federal government must be Black!

This way, every White district would need to ensure that one Black American lived there, so they'd have someone to elect. And it would be best if there were more than one Black American to run for public office, so each district would probably have to ensure that a handful of Black families lived in their districts.

But in Reagan's America we are eliminating the government, so I imagine we will reduce the number of seats in Congress and the Senate to say, 50 Representatives and 50 Senators. Because government is bad, and it should be small. So we will have one hundred jobs for Black Americans. Give each of them a staff of ten and we are up to eleven hundred Black Americans employed through the advances of the Civil Rights Act.

If the protections of the Civil Rights Act are not supposed to apply to private industry, and the government is not supposed to hire people, where will the rest of all the Black Americans work?

Why do teabaggers and Rand Paul hate America so much?

Should Private Industry Be Exempt From The Civil Rights Act?

by Dick Mac

I say no, of course; but many who worship at the crotch of capital, like it was Ronald Reagan's genitals, think that private industry should not be held to the same standard as our government.

Rand Paul, newly nominated Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show last night and I had the good fortune to be watching.

Paul has attracted attention because of his lack of clarity on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He'll tell you up and down, inside and out, that he abhors discrimination and racism. And he is believable. But, then he says that the laws that protect Americans from discrimination on the basis of race should only be applied to the federal government, not to private industry.

So, the host asked him point-blank if Woolworth's should have been allowed to keep their lunch counter segregated (that is for whites only).

For those of you unfamiliar with the history of the civil rights movement of the mid-20th Century, Woolworth's lunch counters became a focal-point of the struggle against segregation; and many people were beaten or arrested for being black at the lunch counter or aiding and abetting blacks who attempted to be served at the lunch counter.

It's a particularly ugly chapter in America's more recent history.

Now, conservatism has changed in the past thirty years, and even more rapidly in the past 18 months, so I don't know what the "conservative" position is anymore. I know that even the most heinous right-wingers of our times have expressed unwavering support for the Civil Rights Act, even politicians who are known racists see the benefits of that Act of Congress. It created a huge new market. Blacks would become consumers and that was good for industry.

Since the teabagger movement, though, "conservatism" has become something I can't quite wrap my mind around. (They are NOT racists, just ask them!) It's just not clear yet, what brand of conservatism teabaggers support. It's probably not conservatism at all.

Rand Paul is a teabagger, and he is unable to offer a clear answer to the question: "Should Woolworths have been allowed to keep their lunch counter segregated?"!

It's a pretty easy question. There isn't any hidden subtext. Either the federal government should enforce the notion that discrimination against American taxpayers on the basis of race is wrong; or the federal government should not be allowed to enforce the notion that discrimination against American taxpayers on the basis of race is wrong. There really isn't any in-between.

This clip is 20 minutes long, and I think it is worth the watch:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So, which is it?

Should Woolworths have been allowed to remain segregated or not?

LGBT Civil Rights

by Al Falafal

This is just a little something off the cuff - I wrote it in response to some blogger and decided that it was too good to just leave it with the homophobe I was flaming. Not that it's anything special. It's probably a piece of shit. But that would be too good to leave with the homophobe I was flaming...



It has been very fashionable in the straight white world to be outwardly pro-civil rights for black people no matter how you really feel (I know because I am able to pass among them - yes, it's spooky!). It has become faux fashionable to be tolerant of homosexuals but the idea of civil rights only applies to white people's black friend. Straight white people - and some blacks straights I know - act offended at the very suggestion that our struggle for equality may be equivalent to the black struggle for civil rights - which it is of course. But our experiences are obviously different and so what? As all my fierce black LGBT brothers & sisters realize, it IS all about civil rights. Many differences in our struggles, of course. We homos were never enslaved en masse against our will for several hundred years (except for the black slaves that happened to be gay - yes, there were gay slaves!) and we have had fewer riots. But I can give you one huge similarity and one huge difference.

Similarity: the bible. Fundamentalist Christianity has been used to justify racism and homophobia equally. You know those White supremecists - the KKK? Steeped in Christian racism! Steeped in it! Now the Klan and its influence has been cut down to size, thank god! - still a threat but not like they were at the height of the struggle for black civil rights. The face of homophobia in this country, however, is today the full-blown face of fundamental Christianity. There is nothing else to it.

Difference: I may not be totally accurate but it seems to me that the civil rights struggle for equality among the races was NEVER put to a popular vote. Has it? On any scale? I'd like to know. What I do know is that interracial marriage rights - that have been DEFINED as CIVIL RIGHTS - were not won by popular vote and they have never been subjected to a public referendum. Interracial marriage was legalized once and for all by the Supreme Court Decision in Loving v. Virginia (1967!). White racists (who were and still may be the majority of America) decried the decision but the uproar soon settled down and white racists contented themselves to quietly seething under their breath instead of mobilizing to restore miscegenation laws that were based on their racist biblical values.

Why? because when interracial marriage was legalized the white christian racists were too frightened to do anything about it.

Why is this important? Well, what do you think would have happened if interracial marriage HAD ever been put on the ballot somewhere in the country? Behind the safety of that ballot box curtain white people would have had no problem voting what they believed - voting against what they feared. But then again, blacks were getting so uppity during that time - who knows what kind of wild mayhem would have befallen our already riot-torn cities?

The point is that, out of abject fear, Catholics and fundamentalist christians dropped their opposition to interracial marriage after the Supreme Court settled the dispute. THE CHURCH WAS FORCED TO CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS THAT THEY SAID WERE BASED ON THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF TRADITION - THAT MARRIAGE IS ONLY LEGITIMATE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN OF THE SAME RACE. After saying over and over that Marriage ALWAYS meant one thing - no mixing of races - suddenly they CHANGED their definition of marriage.

Now the Catholic Church makes another claim: that Marriage has ALWAYS only meant one thing - union of one man and one woman. That it would be "changing the meaning of marriage" if two people of the same sex were recognized as fully equal with their demand that marriage can only be between one man & one woman (at a time).

And now, once again, the Catholic Church claims that GOD HAS DECREED THAT THEY CANNOT and WILL NOT change their beliefs to accommodate the modern world. And since LGBT people are not at all scary to them - they can see that we are basically harmless - they have no reason to fear retribution the way they feared it in their tiny racist minds by inventing images of big black scary bogeymen - rampaging African Americans - who they had spent so long convincing themselves and each other were nothing but savage rapists and murderers.

White racist homophobic christians are not afraid of everyday queers because there are enough of us who look just like them. So they have no problem overstepping their boundaries as religious non-political organizations and spending millions of dollars funding referenda like Prop 8 & Maine's Question 1. They would never have done this after the law between interracial marriage was struck down.

To put the best spin on it - civil rights legislation, based on race has been seen, even by racist white christians, as settled law. No one dares put THOSE Civil Rights questions on a ballot. It would probably NOT be allowed. If they did put the question on the ballot as to whether blacks should be considered equal to whites, the racist white majority in this country would surely have re-legitimized the institution of slavery for blacks by now. Especially in the Southern States.

Did anyone ever suggest that interracial marriage rights be a matter of individual states to decide? I don't think so. But when it comes to OUR CIVIL RIGHTS, it seems all you have to do is get a number of signatures on a petition and then get the Catholic Church and Mormons to pump millions of dollars into a hateful campaign to motivate the hateful ignorant and voila! The majority has spoken - they must be appeased in their ignorance because it has something to do with god. And you don't want to piss god off, you know.

Should the Majority Choose the Rights of the Minority?

The Boston Globe has posted an online poll asking whether Governor Romney is right to ask the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to force the Legislature to vote on the anti gay marriage constitutional amendment.

It is not generally the luxury of the majority to vote on the rights of the minority. If the majority has been left to decide the fate of the minority, then a democratic process might take place, but neither the ideals of liberty nor the ideas of civilization would ever have been advanced.

Would slaves ever have been freed if it was put to a vote? Would blacks ever have been given the right to vote if it had been put to a vote of whites only? Of course not!

America is great because we the people (our government) work to advance the civilized rights of all citizens, not just the priviliges of the majority.

Please consider voting "No" in the Globe poll by clicking here.