This is a long but interesting exchange.
Curious Carl.
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: Glenn Greenwald: Why It's Epically Important That Obama Endorsed Gay Marriage
Miriam,
Exactly the problem I wrestle with. My parents, and then myself were among those Working Class folks who benefitted by the presence of FDR in the White House. We, and many like us, looked at the nation and said, "It is good". We took advantage of the much broader opportunities afforded us and believed that this was to be the wave of the future.
As the storm clouds gathered and bit by bit the advantages were chipped away or hog tied, we spent our time basking at the theater or the ball yard or on extended vacations or cruises. We moved to nicer neighborhoods and sent our children to the finest of public schools and gave them private lessons in the Arts. In short, we began mimicking the very people we had once abhorred. And we really believed that we would soon merge with them and all be one big happy family dining at the Members Only Club.
And we just turned our backs on the slums and the blight and the people of color and the Gays and the elderly poor. We actually began thinking and talking like our Ruling Class Masters.
And they fed even more slop to us to wallow in.
So today I look about and ask what it was all about. Today we have more poor disenfranchised people living under the overpasses, more crumbling schools, highways, bridges, local government, and a growing level of intolerance and downright mindless hatred of anyone who is not just like us.
While Roosevelt provided a momentary respite, he did nothing to change the basic flaw.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----From: Miriam VieniSent: Monday, May 14, 2012 11:09 AMSubject: RE: Glenn Greenwald: Why It's Epically Important That Obama Endorsed Gay MarriageBut I suppose that if FDR hadn't made his compormises, we wouldn't have
enjoyed the benefits of a welfare state, limited as they were to certain
sectors of our population, in our lifetime. Some of the changes came because
of World War 2. But if you talk about the long run, then when, I wonder,
would that have been?
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of joe harcz
Comcast
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 12:40 PM
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
Subject: Re: Glenn Greenwald: Why It's Epically Important That Obama
Endorsed Gay Marriage
In regards to what Miriam is discussing vis a vis racial segregation and
other FDR sops to dixiecrats they were numerous. Some go back to the threads
also regarding Hugo Black's strict constructionists opinions which were a
two edged sword as they also allowed labor and other New Deal reforms. FDR
was certainly a pragmatist and good vote counter. It wasn't called the FDR
coalition for nothing.
This said Eleanor was always a prod in the positive direction and others,
including Henry Wallace with all of his flaws kept things moving
progressively.
Now, certainly from our perspective of this day or any day for that matter
many of these compromises were then and are now simply unnacceptable.
Neonetheless they were progress.
Now, it's a matter of perspective, priorities and just whose ox is getting
gored I guess as to whether or not we accept these compromises even though
progressive, or act as revolutionaries.
Personally, being human I vacillilate on the issue.
But, while I disagree with many of Roger's contentions vis a vis scientific
socialism I do think he contributes mightly to the notion that compromises
ultimately garner little in the long run.
I also agree that things are not static and things like this ebb and flow.
But, here is one thing I fundamentally agree with in principle if not
tactics with the diverse likes of Thomas Jefferson and Leon Trotsky. Buth
from very different perspectives thought revolution, whatever that means
must be "permanent", or at least continuous.
Now, defining revolution on the macro level, let alone the micro level is a
ticklish affair.
On this issue, as stated prior, I've certainly evolved, and I must sadly
admit to being traditionallly homophobic and, by that prejudiced
irrationally against gay folks in my youth.
so was society. But, it is remarkable the trends both personally and
nationally on this issue over the past 15 years.
All I'm saying here is that while still not where I would like hings to be
and certainly not where gays who hve real skin in the game want things to be
we've moved very far foward in rapid manner at least on this issue.
Unfortunately we've moved backwards on disability rights and that includes
the rights of those who are disabled and gay.
I've got more to say, but also much yard and woods working to do...
Say, btw all our fruit trees will not yeild this year as we had bbglobal
warming big time and everything blossomed six to eight weeks early, then the
blossoms got hit by frost.
The trees and bushes and berries, in some cases are fine. But fruit for the
season has been destroyed.
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Jarvis <mailto:carjar82@gmail.com>
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
<mailto:blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Glenn Greenwald: Why It's Epically Important That Obama
Endorsed Gay Marriage
Miriam,
Good points. I'm heading for the little town of Joyce, to do good
in the world. I'll think about this and get back to you.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: Miriam Vieni <mailto:miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: 'Blind Democracy Discussion List'
<mailto:blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 8:51 AM
Subject: RE: Glenn Greenwald: Why It's Epically Important
That Obama Endorsed Gay Marriage
Carl,
In the NYT Audible summary I listened to this morning, there
was an article
about Obama calling black ministers to explain his position
and to attempt
to convince them to support him in spite of the fact that so
many of them
are opposed to gay marriage. The article pointed out, as
have several others
I've read, that the population is basically split down the
middle on this
issue and that gay marriage is legal in only 7 states. North
Carolina just
banned it, as well as civil unions. It is true that he's
getting funds from
some wealthy gay and lesbian organizations, but he may also
lose votes. I'm
trying to remember which huge decision FDR made in which he
purposefully
omitted African Americans in order to satisfy the southern
states. I have
seen it referred to several times. Perhaps it had to do with
protection of
home health aides and house cleaners in the social security
act or in
relation to the minimum wage. I know that had we been adults
at the time,
you and I would have found much to quarrel with in terms of
his compromises.
So yes, Obama, given his propensity for timidity and
compromise, didn't do
the whole job. But he did more than Clinton with his "don't
ask don't tell"
and his "defense of marriage act". He did something which is
better than
nothing. I'm all in favor of baby steps. They move one
forward, a bit at a
time.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of
Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 11:13 AM
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
Subject: Re: Glenn Greenwald: Why It's Epically Important
That Obama
Endorsed Gay Marriage
Miriam,
After drinking my cup of coffee and reading Glenn
Greenwald's article, I
will concede the point that Barak Obama's support of same
sex marriages is
an historical event.
He might have gone on to declare that while it is currently
up to individual
states to handle, he would remind us that we are a nation of
compassionate
people, fighting for human dignity around the world.
I am a huge fan of Glenn Greenwald's, but I do not agree
that President
Obama's pronouncement was an act of leadership. . If
President Obama had
just announced his personal belief, and left it there, I
could say that it
was a courageous act. But then to go on to say that it was
an individual
state matter, is like the parent who tells their child, "you
can go, if it's
all right with your father". And the child knows that
chances are not good
for that to happen.
I understand that we move slowly, and compromise is the way
to reach our
goals. But we are losing ground on more fronts than we are
winning.
And the reason is that we are being given non choices to
fill political
offices. Leaderless leaders.
The leadership exist, but it is coming from high on the hill
behind the iron
gates where the beautiful people live.
Carl Jarvis
Original Message -----
From: Miriam Vieni <mailto:miriamvieni@optonline.net>
To: 'Blind Democracy Discussion List'
<mailto:blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 6:22 PM
Subject: Glenn Greenwald: Why It's Epically Important That
Obama
Endorsed Gay Marriage
Glenn Greenwald: Why It's Epically Important That Obama
Endorsed Gay
Marriage
By Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian
Posted on May 11, 2012, Printed on May 13, 2012
http://www.alternet.org/story/155391/glenn_greenwald%3A_why_it%27s_epically_
important_that_obama_endorsed_gay_marriage
In an interview on ABC News Wednesday, President Obama,
after
several years
of expressing opposition to same-sex marriage and then coyly
describing his
position as "evolving", expressed his support for it. In a
one-on-one
interview, he told Robin Roberts:
"It is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think
same-sex
couples
should be able to get married."
To understand the significance of Obama's action, a bit of
historical
context is required. In 1996, the British writer Andrew
Sullivan
published a
book, Virtually Normal, which advocated legal recognition of
the
marriages
of same-sex couples. So radical was that idea back then - a
mere 16
years
ago - that very few gay citizens, and almost no gay groups,
endorsed
it.
Instead, Sullivan told me, "I was actually picketed at book
stores"
by one
gay group, which "had placards with my face on them and
cross-hairs
placed
in between my eyes." And, he recalled, the Human Rights
Campaign
Fund (the
nation's largest LGBT advocacy group) "refused to use the
word
marriage
until the new millennium."
Indeed, Sullivan's book was published the same year that an
overwhelming,
bipartisan majority of the US Senate enacted, and President
Bill
Clinton
signed into law, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act
(Doma), which
barred
the granting of any federal spousal benefits (immigration,
tax,
estate, and
hundreds of others) to same-sex couples. Two years earlier,
another
large
bipartisan majority of Congress, along with President
Clinton,
banned openly
gay citizens from serving in the US military.
In the mid 1980s, the US supreme court upheld the
constitutionality
of state
laws criminalizing same-sex relations, with the court's
chief
justice,
Warren Berger, approvingly quoting Blackstone's condemnation
of gay
sex as
an "infamous crime against nature". As the Aids epidemic
exploded,
President
Ronald Reagan, for years, refused even to speak of it
because it was
mostly
gay victims who were dying. The writer Edmund White
yesterday
recalled:
"As a man in his 70s, I grew up in an era when homosexuality
was
still an
offense in some states punishable by death."
In sum, as recently as the 1980s and 1990s, the country was
headed
in the
direction of aggressively denying the most basic rights to
gay
citizens.
Marriage equality, a definitively fringe position, was on
virtually
nobody's
radar.
Pervasive anti-gay discrimination in the US endures to this
day.
Doma is
still valid law, denying same-sex couples every federal
spousal
right to
which opposite-sex couples are entitled (as a result, there
are
thousands of
gay Americans unable to live in their own country with their
foreign
national spouse). Same-sex marriage is recognized in only
seven of
the 50
states. On Tuesday, the day before Obama expressed his
support for
marriage
equality, the state of North Carolina - which Obama won in
2008 -
approved a
ballot measure to ban both same-sex marriage and civil
unions by a
landslide
majority.
This is why it is genuinely historic that Obama, in the
midst of a
difficult
re-election campaign, chose to become the first US president
ever to
support
same-sex marriage (former Vice-President Dick Cheney, citing
his
lesbian
daughter, did so when running for re-election in 2004). One
can
question
Obama's sincerity; some believe his reliance on gay donors
and need
for
greater enthusiasm among his core voters was his motive. One
can
quibble
with his rationale; some have criticized him for suggesting
that
states have
the right to ban same-sex marriage if they wish. But one
cannot
reasonably
question the importance of his act.
Obama's public defense immediately enshrines same-sex
marriage as
theofficial orthodoxy of the Democratic party. It is
inconceivable
that
marriage equality will ever again retreat to the fringe. His
willingness to
embrace it in the midst of an election year signals a belief
that
the
American public is ready to accept this position as
perfectly
mainstream,
even if they disagree with it. It will undoubtedly enable -
or
pressure -
other world leaders to support the same view.
Perhaps the least quantifiable impact of Obama's statement
is the
most
important one: it is a powerful message to gay youth that
their
sexual
orientation is neither a flaw nor an abnormality. As White
wrote
yesterday:
"The stigma of being gay drove my age-mates and me toward
drink,
suicide and
years on the psychoanalytic couch in an effort to go
straight. We
were
wracked with self-hatred, which blighted so many lives of
our
friends."
This stigma, devastating in so many ways, is surely lessened
when
the
nation's highest elected official advocates for full
legality for
same-sex
couples.
This week, gay Americans and their allies predictably, and
understandably,
expressed their glee, along with a not insubstantial amount
of
shock, at
seeing their full legal equality publicly embraced by an
American
president.
But the reaction of the right wing is more telling. Obama's
GOP
opponent,
Mitt Romney, re-affirmed his opposition to both same-sex
marriage
and civil
unions, but did so with reserved rhetoric and a very tepid
tone,
betraying a
belief that same-sex marriage - once an electoral gold mine
for his
party -
is unlikely to hurt Obama's electoral chances.
US media coverage Thursday has been fixated on the micro
aspects of
Obama's
announcement: his motives, how it will affect the election,
the role
that
internal administrative divisions played in his decision.
But 20
years from
now, none of that will matter. The historic event is that
same-sex
marriage,
for the first time, now has a supporter in the Oval Office.
There are many disappointments and truly bad acts for which
President Obama
is responsible, but for one day at least, on this single
issue, he
demonstrated authentic and important leadership on a civil
rights
issue that
affects millions.
Glenn Greenwald is a Constitutional law attorney and chief
blogger
at
Unclaimed Territory. His forthcoming book, How Would a
Patriot Act:
Defending American Values from a President Run Amok will be
released
by
Working Assets Publishing next month.
C 2012 The Guardian All rights reserved.
View this story online at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/155391/
Glenn
Greenwald: Why It's Epically Important That Obama Endorsed
Gay
Marriage
By Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian
Posted on May 11, 2012, Printed on May 13, 2012
http://www.alternet.org/story/155391/glenn_greenwald%3A_why_it%27s_epically_
important_that_obama_endorsed_gay_marriage
In an interview on ABC News Wednesday, President Obama,
after
several years
of expressing opposition to same-sex marriage and then coyly
describing his
position as "evolving", expressed his support for it. In a
one-on-one
interview, he told Robin Roberts:
"It is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think
same-sex
couples
should be able to get married."
To understand the significance of Obama's action, a bit of
historical
context is required. In 1996, the British writer Andrew
Sullivan
published a
book, Virtually Normal, which advocated legal recognition of
the
marriages
of same-sex couples. So radical was that idea back then - a
mere 16
years
ago - that very few gay citizens, and almost no gay groups,
endorsed
it.
Instead, Sullivan told me, "I was actually picketed at book
stores"
by one
gay group, which "had placards with my face on them and
cross-hairs
placed
in between my eyes." And, he recalled, the Human Rights
Campaign
Fund (the
nation's largest LGBT advocacy group) "refused to use the
word
marriage
until the new millennium."
Indeed, Sullivan's book was published the same year that an
overwhelming,
bipartisan majority of the US Senate enacted, and President
Bill
Clinton
signed into law, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act
(Doma), which
barred
the granting of any federal spousal benefits (immigration,
tax,
estate, and
hundreds of others) to same-sex couples. Two years earlier,
another
large
bipartisan majority of Congress, along with President
Clinton,
banned openly
gay citizens from serving in the US military.
In the mid 1980s, the US supreme court upheld the
constitutionality
of state
laws criminalizing same-sex relations, with the court's
chief
justice,
Warren Berger, approvingly quoting Blackstone's condemnation
of gay
sex as
an "infamous crime against nature". As the Aids epidemic
exploded,
President
Ronald Reagan, for years, refused even to speak of it
because it was
mostly
gay victims who were dying. The writer Edmund White
yesterday
recalled:
"As a man in his 70s, I grew up in an era when homosexuality
was
still an
offense in some states punishable by death."
In sum, as recently as the 1980s and 1990s, the country was
headed
in the
direction of aggressively denying the most basic rights to
gay
citizens.
Marriage equality, a definitively fringe position, was on
virtually
nobody's
radar.
Pervasive anti-gay discrimination in the US endures to this
day.
Doma is
still valid law, denying same-sex couples every federal
spousal
right to
which opposite-sex couples are entitled (as a result, there
are
thousands of
gay Americans unable to live in their own country with their
foreign
national spouse). Same-sex marriage is recognized in only
seven of
the 50
states. On Tuesday, the day before Obama expressed his
support for
marriage
equality, the state of North Carolina - which Obama won in
2008 -
approved a
ballot measure to ban both same-sex marriage and civil
unions by a
landslide
majority.
This is why it is genuinely historic that Obama, in the
midst of a
difficult
re-election campaign, chose to become the first US president
ever to
support
same-sex marriage (former Vice-President Dick Cheney, citing
his
lesbian
daughter, did so when running for re-election in 2004). One
can
question
Obama's sincerity; some believe his reliance on gay donors
and need
for
greater enthusiasm among his core voters was his motive. One
can
quibble
with his rationale; some have criticized him for suggesting
that
states have
the right to ban same-sex marriage if they wish. But one
cannot
reasonably
question the importance of his act.
Obama's public defense immediately enshrines same-sex
marriage as
theofficial orthodoxy of the Democratic party. It is
inconceivable
that
marriage equality will ever again retreat to the fringe. His
willingness to
embrace it in the midst of an election year signals a belief
that
the
American public is ready to accept this position as
perfectly
mainstream,
even if they disagree with it. It will undoubtedly enable -
or
pressure -
other world leaders to support the same view.
Perhaps the least quantifiable impact of Obama's statement
is the
most
important one: it is a powerful message to gay youth that
their
sexual
orientation is neither a flaw nor an abnormality. As White
wrote
yesterday:
"The stigma of being gay drove my age-mates and me toward
drink,
suicide and
years on the psychoanalytic couch in an effort to go
straight. We
were
wracked with self-hatred, which blighted so many lives of
our
friends."
This stigma, devastating in so many ways, is surely lessened
when
the
nation's highest elected official advocates for full
legality for
same-sex
couples.
This week, gay Americans and their allies predictably, and
understandably,
expressed their glee, along with a not insubstantial amount
of
shock, at
seeing their full legal equality publicly embraced by an
American
president.
But the reaction of the right wing is more telling. Obama's
GOP
opponent,
Mitt Romney, re-affirmed his opposition to both same-sex
marriage
and civil
unions, but did so with reserved rhetoric and a very tepid
tone,
betraying a
belief that same-sex marriage - once an electoral gold mine
for his
party -
is unlikely to hurt Obama's electoral chances.
US media coverage Thursday has been fixated on the micro
aspects of
Obama's
announcement: his motives, how it will affect the election,
the role
that
internal administrative divisions played in his decision.
But 20
years from
now, none of that will matter. The historic event is that
same-sex
marriage,
for the first time, now has a supporter in the Oval Office.
There are many disappointments and truly bad acts for which
President Obama
is responsible, but for one day at least, on this single
issue, he
demonstrated authentic and important leadership on a civil
rights
issue that
affects millions.
Glenn Greenwald is a Constitutional law attorney and chief
blogger
at
Unclaimed Territory. His forthcoming book, How Would a
Patriot Act:
Defending American Values from a President Run Amok will be
released
by
Working Assets Publishing next month.
C 2012 The Guardian All rights reserved.
View this story online at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/155391/
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
________________________________
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
No comments:
Post a Comment