"We're all Americans," as Laura Bush and Joe Lieberman recently pointed out when calling attention to Hurricane Gustav. Why would anyone need to tell us in such a heavy-handed way that we're all Americans? Was there ever a doubt? Although I hate to acknowledge it, sometimes there is. Would anyone doubt that more swift action would have been taken had a whiter, more affluent city had been in Katrina's path?
Another travesty that has been more conscious and deliberate has been the denial of basic civil rights to gay and lesbian couples. When it comes to the rights of two consenting adults who want to formalize their bond, the burden of proof should be on those who wish to deny those rights. Sure, the founding fathers probably never envisioned a day when men would marry other men. Then again, they lived in a different time when no one would ever dare articulate such desires. But what the founding fathers did envision was the threat of the majority that could infringe on the rights of the minority. John Adams, in his great wisdom, constantly warned us of this.
Today, many people still think that a majority rules in all situations. If 51% of the population opposes gay marriage rights, then gay marriages should remain outlawed. We have lulled ourselves into the same mistakes of the past. It's not up to your own personal whims who has rights and who doesn't. Civil rights are not extended to all citizens because it's personally convenient, but because it's the decent thing to do in a free, fair society. And gay people are indeed citizens. They are Americans. I hope Laura Bush and Joe Lieberman realize this someday.
I won't let Obama off the hook on this issue, either. He has taken an official stance against gay marriage and has thrown gays under the proverbial bus by downplaying the issue's importance in the election. However, he has very good reason to do this. The issue hurts him politically. The more people are talking about gay marriage--and there are more revved-up evangelicals than there are outspoken gay rights activists--the greater liklihood that McCain can energize his base and divert attention from glaring Republican failures in the last eight years. I trust that Obama is truly embarrassed by this position that he must take and that he will--as he has promised--work for the promotion of gay couple rights, even if those rights don't include the word "marriage."
McCain's position seems to be more so opposed to gay couples. Even though he uncomfortably mumbled support for gay rights in civil unions when visiting Ellen Degeneres' show, he has supported a proposition in his own state to ban gay rights. See the commercial below, which refers to Proposition 107, a law that does not expand gay rights but restricts them:
Anyway, I don't need to spend much time explaining which candidate will be friendlier to civil rights for gays. Obama might not be the champion that many would hope for, but in this election we only have two choices. Yes, Obama's civil unions rehtoric reeks of "separate but equal" policy, but the nasty rehtoric that has come from Republicans in recent years is more reminiscent of an even darker time when Dred Scott had no rights that a white man was obligated to recognize...
Anyway, I think we'll look back someday and wonder why it took us so long to come around on this issue, the same way it took us too long to extend the vote to women and blacks. Let's get it right now and do the right thing (and save ourselves from undue future embarrassment). In 1983 John McCain opposed the creation of a federal holiday commemorating Martin Luther King. He later said, "I was wrong and eventually realized that, in time to give full support [in 1990] for a state holiday in Arizona." That's very touching, but let's put someone in charge who will take make the decisions now, and not nearly a decade late, to treat people with the respect they deserve. Obama is right: McCain is well-meaning, but he doesn't get it.
Posts
