The U.S. Supreme Court ended its latest session with a bang on Wednesday with a pair of landmark rulings that finally did the right thing for this nation's gay community.
In a pair of 5-4 rulings, justices overturned a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1996 which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples. Justices also ruled the plaintiffs in California's Prop 8 case lacked the standing to appeal the lower court's ruling. That got justices off the hook from having to rule on the controversial issue, but it also had the effect of sending the case back to California. Both the trial courts and the appeals courts there, even the state Supreme Court, had ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional. That opens the door for gay marriages to resume for the first time since 2008.
To me, these decisions represented a pair of no-brainers for the Court. Should gay couples have the right to commit their lives to each other, to leave property to each other if one of them dies or to visit each other in the hospital if one of them is gravely ill? Of course they should. Should they be able to file taxes jointly, or collect their partner's Social Security if they die? Of course. Like I said, this is a no-brainer for any fair-minded, compassionate person. Still, I was surprised that these decisions came from this largely conservative court at this time. Frankly, I never thought it would happen in my lifetime. I'm glad I was wrong.
Of course, not everyone is happy with the Court's ruling. Opponents of gay marriage -- mostly religious fundamentalists and members of this nation's Religious Right, view the rulings as the latest sign of our nation's moral decay. They see granting equality to gay couples as "redefining marriage," or undercutting the very moral foundation of our nation. These people need to take a deep breath and calm down. Let me point out a couple of things.
First, gay marriage will have absolutely no effect on heterosexual marriages at all. Heterosexuals will still be able to get married and start families, just as they always have. In granting marriage rights to gays, the definition of marriage hasn't been "redefined." It's simply been expanded to include a group of people who should always have been included to begin with.
Second, if you want to talk about which group has done more harm to the institution of marriage, we need look no further than heterosexuals. Today, about half of straight marriages end in divorce. Compare that to the gay community, which is filled with couples who have been in committed relationships for years, even decades. So which group is it again that understands the meaning of commitment? (Hint: It's NOT the straight community.)
The problem in discussing gay marriage is that people too often let their religious beliefs get tangled up in the discussion. They look at gay marriage as "an abomination," or otherwise sinful. They actually think that people CHOOSE whether or not to be gay. If you believe that, no wonder you are opposed to gay marriage. Here's the truth.
Homosexuality isn't a choice. This isn't just my opinion, either. There's a growing body of evidence showing that there are real, discernible differences between the brains of gay people and straight people. There's a growing body of evidence that our sexual orientation is hardwired, that it's genetic. In religious terms, homosexuality is just one more bit of diversity in God's amazing, breathtaking creation. In simplest terms, ask yourself: "What person in his or her right mind would wake up one morning and just decide to be gay? What person would knowingly make themselves part of a group that is so hated and misunderstood?" Right. No logical person would.
Once you look at homosexuality that way; once you realize that gay people are normal, with one tiny difference, it's easy to see that the issue isn't about religion. Nor is it an issue of morality. The issue decided by the court was one of basic fairness and equality. The Court's decision might not be popular with all groups, but justices undeniably made the right decision. They made the only decision they could, and our entire nation will benefit from that far-reaching vision.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Paula Deen, affirmative action and other major happenings
It's been a busy time for those of us who enjoy observing American politics. Far from the summer doldrums, this summer season has been bursting with interesting stories, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. There's so much going on, in fact, that I couldn't limit myself to just one topic in my latest post. Instead, I'll touch on each topic, giving my thoughts on each.
The NSA and Edward Snowden: This summer kicked off with a bit of intrigue worthy of a James Bond movie. Earlier this month, it was revealed that Edward Snowden, a 30-year-old former contractor with the National Security Administration had revealed to the public that the government was spying on its citizens through a pair of clandestine programs that tracked both citizens' phone calls and their private e-mails. He did it, he said, to "inform the public of that which is done in their name, and that is which is done against them." Last week, it was revealed that Snowden had landed the job with the NSA with the specific intent of gathering information about the spying programs and revealing it to the public.
The Obama administration, of course, is furious, claiming that Snowden's actions have done serious harm to our national security. In their own defense, they admit to the programs' existence, but insist that the content of those e-mails and phone calls were never being scrutinized. Currently, authorities are engaged in a global game of "Where's Waldo," trying to capture Snowden, who faces espionage charges if apprehended. To date, he has managed to stay one step ahead by nation-hopping to countries that have a strained, at best, relationship with the U.S.
To some, Edward Snowden is clearly a traitor. They defend the government's spying by pointing out that the programs have helped foil dozens of potential terrorist plots. To others, Snowden is a patriot being wrongly persecuted by a nefarious government. To this group, he is this generation's Daniel Ellsburg. Just as Ellsburg's disclosure of the "Pentagon Papers" revealed the truth about U.S. policy in Vietnam and helped bring an end to our involvement there, Snoweden's disclosures have revealed that Obama has continued with, and even expanded, the very Bush-era programs that he decried as a candidate in 2008.
So is Edward Snowden a patriot or a traitor? Well, as easy as it might be to excuse the government's spying on us in the name of national security, I can't help but ask myself, "do the ends justify the means in this case?" The administration claims that the content of the tracked calls and e-mails was never scrutinized, that citizens' privacy was protected. But that doesn't make sense, at least on its surface. And even if the government is telling us the truth, how can we trust them? They lied to us about the continued existence of the programs. And what's to keep them from prying into our personal communications and beginning to scrutinize that content? Having the ability to track Americans' e-mails and phone calls gives the government almost unlimited power over our personal lives, and as a wise man once noted, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Some may disagree with Snowden's methods, but I think in the long run, he will be proven a hero for exposing the government's duplicity. For those who call him a traitor, who are willing to tolerate being spied on so they can feel safe, I would remind them of Benjamin Franklin's famous observation that still holds true today: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The U.S. Supreme Court and affirmative action: This is the first of a pair of major rulings that have come down from the Court this week. In this case, justices held that affirmative action is still constitutional, but they put strict new limits on its use, saying essentially that colleges and universities now have to exhaust every other avenue for creating a diverse student body before affirmative action can be used.
In my mind, this ruling just made sense. Justices stopped just short of overturning affirmative action. Instead, they are demanding that schools think outside the box and find new ways to ensure diversity before falling back on the easy solution of affirmative action. With this ruling, they also are raising the very real question of whether after four decades of affirmative action, it has actually worked as intended. That's a legitimate question that demands an answer.
I believe scrapping affirmative action at this point would be a mistake. We have come a long way since the 1960s, when the integration of our public universities had to be forced, literally at the point of a gun. Children of my generation and younger went to school with blacks and students of other races. In large part, the prejudices that defined earlier generations no longer dominate the discussion. In fact, many of today's students wonder what the big deal is. That's progress. But racism, sadly has not disappeared completely. As long as it exists, we need tools to keep us from giving in to our baser instincts, to ensure that students of all races and backgrounds have an equal opportunity at higher education.
Justices are right that we cannot continue to move forward blindly with affirmative action without making sure it has worked as intended. Perhaps we do need to find new ways to create diversity in our public colleges and universities. But while the need for affirmative action isn't as urgent as it once was, we have not yet reached the point where it is no longer needed. The justices got it right in this case.
The U.S. Supreme Court and the Voting Rights Act: In perhaps the biggest case to come out of the Supreme Court this session, a 5-4 court on Tuesday struck down Section 5 of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. That key section, often called the "backbone" of the Voting Rights Act, required states included in the act -- nine states and parts of six others , mostly in the South -- get federal approval before making any changes to their voting practices. On Tuesday, justices said that requirement was based on an outdated formula -- it was last updated in 1972 -- that failed to take into account the seismic shift that had taken place on the civil rights front in the last 50 years. Although the Court left the door open for Congress to update the formula and restore federal oversight, even congressional supporters of the act say passing new legislation is a very long shot, at best.
This decision should come as no surprise to anyone who has watched the Court in recent years. They have been moving this way incrementally for a long time, and today's ruling was the climax of the court packing that took place under former President George W. Bush.
It strikes me as odd that the same Court that just the day before allowed affirmative action to stand, although with new limits, would take such radical action when it comes to voting rights. The same court that still sees the need for affirmative action (though in a reduced role) to ensure diversity in higher education is going to trust states -- especially states with long histories of voter discrimination -- to regulate their own affairs when it comes to voting? Odd.
It's true that this country has come a long way in terms of civil rights since the Voting Rights Act was first enacted. But what proof do we have that giving these states back the right to regulate their own voting won't result in the clock being turned back 50 years now that no one's watching?
I understand justices' logic in saying the formula behind the provision should have been updated to reflect current realities. But it seems to me that a more prudent approach would have been to wean the affected states of federal supervision over a number of years instead of removing it all at once. Let them prove they are committed to voter equality before giving them back full control. As it now stands, it will be almost impossible for the federal government to reassert control now that it's gone. And while we may, indeed, be ready to run our own affairs in the South, I believe the Court acted very prematurely in this case.
Paula Deen: This may be the most ridiculous story that has gained traction in the last couple of weeks. The celebrity chef is in hot water because she admitted during a recent deposition that she had uttered "the N word" in the past. Deen is being sued by one her former restaurant managers for fostering a hostile work environment, where, she says, racial epithets and sexual harassment were commonplace. So far, despite repeated apologies, Deen's admission that she used the word in the past has cost her her contract with Food Network and an endorsement deal with Smithfield Hams.
To be clear, I do not approve of "the N word," and I don't approve of its use in any situation. I don't even approve of its use when it's used by the black community in an attempt to "rob it of its power." It's a bad, offensive word that should never be used by anyone. Ever.
That being said, I find this whole controversy surrounding Deen to be patently ridiculous. In the first place, what we haven't been told is how long ago she used "the N word." Was it a week ago? Six months ago? A year ago? 20 years ago? Was it used one time? Or did she have a pattern of using it? We all have said things that we regretted. If it was used recently, that's one thing. If she used it one time 20 years ago, then why are we even talking about this? It's irrelevant to who she is now.
The other thing that people aren't taking into account is Deen's age. She's 66, and the South she was raised in was very different than the South she lives in today. Deen was raised in a time when it was acceptable, even commonplace, for blacks to be referred to as "coloreds," "Negroes," and yes, even the "N word." As a young woman, she would have seen nothing wrong with using these terms. In fact, chances are good that she did use these terms at one time or another.
Does her age excuse her word of the "N word"? Of course not, though as my mom used to tell me about my grandmother, who used them freely, "old habits are hard to break." If Deen hasn't learned the evils of that term, if she still uses the "N word" freely today, then she deserves to lose her empire. If, however, she is being persecuted for something she said years ago and she no longer uses the word, then she should get an apology and the lawsuit should be dropped. Either way, it's time to quell this tempest in a teapot and move on.
The NSA and Edward Snowden: This summer kicked off with a bit of intrigue worthy of a James Bond movie. Earlier this month, it was revealed that Edward Snowden, a 30-year-old former contractor with the National Security Administration had revealed to the public that the government was spying on its citizens through a pair of clandestine programs that tracked both citizens' phone calls and their private e-mails. He did it, he said, to "inform the public of that which is done in their name, and that is which is done against them." Last week, it was revealed that Snowden had landed the job with the NSA with the specific intent of gathering information about the spying programs and revealing it to the public.
The Obama administration, of course, is furious, claiming that Snowden's actions have done serious harm to our national security. In their own defense, they admit to the programs' existence, but insist that the content of those e-mails and phone calls were never being scrutinized. Currently, authorities are engaged in a global game of "Where's Waldo," trying to capture Snowden, who faces espionage charges if apprehended. To date, he has managed to stay one step ahead by nation-hopping to countries that have a strained, at best, relationship with the U.S.
To some, Edward Snowden is clearly a traitor. They defend the government's spying by pointing out that the programs have helped foil dozens of potential terrorist plots. To others, Snowden is a patriot being wrongly persecuted by a nefarious government. To this group, he is this generation's Daniel Ellsburg. Just as Ellsburg's disclosure of the "Pentagon Papers" revealed the truth about U.S. policy in Vietnam and helped bring an end to our involvement there, Snoweden's disclosures have revealed that Obama has continued with, and even expanded, the very Bush-era programs that he decried as a candidate in 2008.
So is Edward Snowden a patriot or a traitor? Well, as easy as it might be to excuse the government's spying on us in the name of national security, I can't help but ask myself, "do the ends justify the means in this case?" The administration claims that the content of the tracked calls and e-mails was never scrutinized, that citizens' privacy was protected. But that doesn't make sense, at least on its surface. And even if the government is telling us the truth, how can we trust them? They lied to us about the continued existence of the programs. And what's to keep them from prying into our personal communications and beginning to scrutinize that content? Having the ability to track Americans' e-mails and phone calls gives the government almost unlimited power over our personal lives, and as a wise man once noted, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Some may disagree with Snowden's methods, but I think in the long run, he will be proven a hero for exposing the government's duplicity. For those who call him a traitor, who are willing to tolerate being spied on so they can feel safe, I would remind them of Benjamin Franklin's famous observation that still holds true today: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The U.S. Supreme Court and affirmative action: This is the first of a pair of major rulings that have come down from the Court this week. In this case, justices held that affirmative action is still constitutional, but they put strict new limits on its use, saying essentially that colleges and universities now have to exhaust every other avenue for creating a diverse student body before affirmative action can be used.
In my mind, this ruling just made sense. Justices stopped just short of overturning affirmative action. Instead, they are demanding that schools think outside the box and find new ways to ensure diversity before falling back on the easy solution of affirmative action. With this ruling, they also are raising the very real question of whether after four decades of affirmative action, it has actually worked as intended. That's a legitimate question that demands an answer.
I believe scrapping affirmative action at this point would be a mistake. We have come a long way since the 1960s, when the integration of our public universities had to be forced, literally at the point of a gun. Children of my generation and younger went to school with blacks and students of other races. In large part, the prejudices that defined earlier generations no longer dominate the discussion. In fact, many of today's students wonder what the big deal is. That's progress. But racism, sadly has not disappeared completely. As long as it exists, we need tools to keep us from giving in to our baser instincts, to ensure that students of all races and backgrounds have an equal opportunity at higher education.
Justices are right that we cannot continue to move forward blindly with affirmative action without making sure it has worked as intended. Perhaps we do need to find new ways to create diversity in our public colleges and universities. But while the need for affirmative action isn't as urgent as it once was, we have not yet reached the point where it is no longer needed. The justices got it right in this case.
The U.S. Supreme Court and the Voting Rights Act: In perhaps the biggest case to come out of the Supreme Court this session, a 5-4 court on Tuesday struck down Section 5 of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. That key section, often called the "backbone" of the Voting Rights Act, required states included in the act -- nine states and parts of six others , mostly in the South -- get federal approval before making any changes to their voting practices. On Tuesday, justices said that requirement was based on an outdated formula -- it was last updated in 1972 -- that failed to take into account the seismic shift that had taken place on the civil rights front in the last 50 years. Although the Court left the door open for Congress to update the formula and restore federal oversight, even congressional supporters of the act say passing new legislation is a very long shot, at best.
This decision should come as no surprise to anyone who has watched the Court in recent years. They have been moving this way incrementally for a long time, and today's ruling was the climax of the court packing that took place under former President George W. Bush.
It strikes me as odd that the same Court that just the day before allowed affirmative action to stand, although with new limits, would take such radical action when it comes to voting rights. The same court that still sees the need for affirmative action (though in a reduced role) to ensure diversity in higher education is going to trust states -- especially states with long histories of voter discrimination -- to regulate their own affairs when it comes to voting? Odd.
It's true that this country has come a long way in terms of civil rights since the Voting Rights Act was first enacted. But what proof do we have that giving these states back the right to regulate their own voting won't result in the clock being turned back 50 years now that no one's watching?
I understand justices' logic in saying the formula behind the provision should have been updated to reflect current realities. But it seems to me that a more prudent approach would have been to wean the affected states of federal supervision over a number of years instead of removing it all at once. Let them prove they are committed to voter equality before giving them back full control. As it now stands, it will be almost impossible for the federal government to reassert control now that it's gone. And while we may, indeed, be ready to run our own affairs in the South, I believe the Court acted very prematurely in this case.
Paula Deen: This may be the most ridiculous story that has gained traction in the last couple of weeks. The celebrity chef is in hot water because she admitted during a recent deposition that she had uttered "the N word" in the past. Deen is being sued by one her former restaurant managers for fostering a hostile work environment, where, she says, racial epithets and sexual harassment were commonplace. So far, despite repeated apologies, Deen's admission that she used the word in the past has cost her her contract with Food Network and an endorsement deal with Smithfield Hams.
To be clear, I do not approve of "the N word," and I don't approve of its use in any situation. I don't even approve of its use when it's used by the black community in an attempt to "rob it of its power." It's a bad, offensive word that should never be used by anyone. Ever.
That being said, I find this whole controversy surrounding Deen to be patently ridiculous. In the first place, what we haven't been told is how long ago she used "the N word." Was it a week ago? Six months ago? A year ago? 20 years ago? Was it used one time? Or did she have a pattern of using it? We all have said things that we regretted. If it was used recently, that's one thing. If she used it one time 20 years ago, then why are we even talking about this? It's irrelevant to who she is now.
The other thing that people aren't taking into account is Deen's age. She's 66, and the South she was raised in was very different than the South she lives in today. Deen was raised in a time when it was acceptable, even commonplace, for blacks to be referred to as "coloreds," "Negroes," and yes, even the "N word." As a young woman, she would have seen nothing wrong with using these terms. In fact, chances are good that she did use these terms at one time or another.
Does her age excuse her word of the "N word"? Of course not, though as my mom used to tell me about my grandmother, who used them freely, "old habits are hard to break." If Deen hasn't learned the evils of that term, if she still uses the "N word" freely today, then she deserves to lose her empire. If, however, she is being persecuted for something she said years ago and she no longer uses the word, then she should get an apology and the lawsuit should be dropped. Either way, it's time to quell this tempest in a teapot and move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)