Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Those Left Behind

In his victory speech last night, Senator Barack Obama stated that this election gave us an
answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

At least with regards to gay Americans, he was wrong.

* California narrowly voted to overturn its state supreme court ruling granting gay couples the right to marry.

* Arizona passed its own amendment barring gay marriage, after narrowly failing in the endeavor two years ago.

* Florida managed to leap its 60% hurdle to also write discrimination into its constitution.

* Arkansas prohibited gay couples from adopting children.

There was a sense yesterday and today that America had taken a great step forward -- that it had spoken with a voice of inclusion and respect for all persons, regardless of who they are or how they were born.

I can't imagine what it feels like to be someone who was written out of that message of inclusion. The historic nature of this election makes the resounding repudiation America gave to the equal human dignity of gays and lesbians that much more shameful. The nation this year was primed to be thinking about discrimination. In a very real sense, the decision to cast a ballot for Barack Obama was a decision to cast off the weight of our prior inequities. In such a context, the choice to strip gay and lesbian Americans of their natural human rights was more than just a failure of imagination. It was an affirmative decision by the electorate to announce that gays and lesbians are less than full Americans. In past years, we could blame inertia, apathy, and ignorance. This year, it was willful.

It is a decision that we will look back upon in shame, and it is a decision that is a disgrace to America, no matter what other barriers we broke today.


The Gaucho Politico said...


Anonymous said...

Thanks David, I am indeed pretty miserable about it.

Also, on behalf of Minnesota I'd like to apologize. I coulda done more. But then again, you *did* have the opportunity to make it one vote closer.

Superdestroyer said...

Since you believe that the government can treat white college students differently than black college students, then how can you be upset when the voters use the ballot box to say that the states can treat homosexuals differently the heterosexuals?

If you want to stop discrimination, maybe you should support a neutral government that treats everyone the same no matter what. I guess "Compelling Interest" is great when it is used to discriminate against whites but bad when used to discriminate against homosexuals.

PG said...


Um, what court has said that government has a a "Compelling Interest" to discriminate against homosexuals? Did these ballot measures require that voters feel that there be a "compelling interest" in order to vote yes? Do you actually think through these arguments?

Superdestroyer said...

Mr. Schraub has been consistent is his belief that the government should be able to discriminate against whites for social engineering purposes. So, how can he complain is religious Christians want to discriminate against homosexuals for social engieering purposes.

If you believe discriminate is wrong in the case of homosexuals, you shold also believe that discriminate is wrong when applied to middle class whites applying for college, magnet high schools, government contracts, etc.

If you believe discriminate is OK, then you have to accept it when others decide to discriminate.

Now, if Mr. Schraub will admit that he has been wrong about AA and reparations, then he can regain his crediblity in discussing equal rights for homosexuals.

PG said...

So you're not going to bother trying to defend your ridiculous claim that anyone, upholding different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation, has said the government has to have a compelling interest to engage in such discrimination?

In that case, your analogy falls apart. If government only needed a rational basis to discriminate on the basis of race (which is the standard applied by the NY Court of Appeals and other courts that have refused to declare a right to same-sex marriage), it could go a lot further than the narrowly tailored affirmative action programs it currently uses.

Fail. Please come back when you can make a coherent constitutional argument. Until then, you're spouting irrelevancies.