Since Tuesday Rand Paul, the winner of the Kentucky republican primary has seen a lot of press. The son of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has had a bit of controversy flare up in response to some comments made about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its relation to the 14th Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection Clause's requirement of the states to provide said protection under the law to all citizens of its jurisdiction. The primary winner stated ambiguously that he would have passed the Civil Rights Act "differently" because of "Title II" of the act, which prohibits private businesses from discriminating against people based on race. Rand tried to back his position by leaning against what has become, for some reason, an infallible, sacrosanct Bill of Rights. Rand's defense was to say we shouldn't trample freedom of speech and that basically should one want to discriminate against another, that's all well and good and we'll not say anything, or do anything cause it's their right to discriminate.
Surely this view will not, and did not, sit well with many in the media. Political analysts, serving congressmen and women, and bloggers erupted over his comments. (Hey, here's another one!) I want to focus my attention on something that I haven't seen much of however. There's been scores of articles, opinions on just how close to racism Dr. Paul is approaching with his comments, but I think there is something more missing. Dr. Paul is stating, by saying that it's okay to discriminate and that we should allow people to do so, that people do not change, and we (or government) ought not try to change them. In other words, Dr. Paul is making an argument against education and its ability to shine light in the darkest recesses of thought, reason, and prejudice. Education is supposed to change us, to show us right when we are wrong, and to strengthen our beliefs when it validates what we already know.
Rand Paul's view of humanity seems bleak to me, stated perfectly by his Democratic opponent Jack Conway: "cold and callous." Paul stated, in response to the uproar, that he "unequivocally" does not condone discrimination, nor discriminates himself, but that others do, and it's okay for them to do so. This is simply illogical. If Dr. Paul isn't discriminatory towards other races then somewhere throughout his life he has learned that all people are equal, and valuable to society and humanity. But allowing others to hold beliefs that say otherwise and purporting that that is okay is unequivocally stating that other people cannot learn the same as he did and is excusing their behavior. I wonder if Paul thinks God will sort out the righteous non-discriminators from the impious discriminators in the end, relieving him and others of moral judgment. Paul should know about religion and God; he's been attending the Presbyterian church in his town since his family moved there and calls himself a Christian. Must have slipped his mind, that oft repeated obscure passage about, jeez, what was it, oh right: Mark 12:31 "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Too bad the Bible can't teach us how to be better people...
Dr. Paul does put a lot of faith in Christianity and its ability to teach humanity saying we do not need laws so long as everyone is Christian (I'd really like to pick his brain about The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the persecution of the Jews in World War II!). Though he must think, since it's okay to discriminate and others can't be taught not to be prejudice as he was taught, that missions and the missionary work being done in hundreds of countries across the globe, and indeed in our very own country, is a big waste of time. I mean, these non-Christian people "discriminate," or don't believe, in the Christian life so we might as well let them be and not worry because it's okay for them not to hold the same beliefs as everyone else. He must think missionaries trying to teach a Christian, moral code is pointless, and violates the non-believers' rights of opinion, and freedom of religion. I can't believe Rand Paul isn't standing up and saying "Hey, don't try to change them. They're individuals and have their own thoughts and we need to respect that and God forbid [pun intended] we try teaching them otherwise." I can't wait for Rand to come out in favor of gay rights (government shouldn't discriminate either, right Rand?), as this article opines the issue.
Dr. Paul, the Bill of Rights was the foundation of law for our country, but even our founding fathers knew the laws were not perfect, and that history, societies evolve, and with that evolution, the law should change as well. The allowance of amendments to the Constitution was a necessity to ensure we can fulfill the requirements of our present time, any present time, with the notion of liberty and justice for all men and women. The Bill of Rights, our initial Constitution, was the building block to a great society, but was utterly flawed from the outset (no person is 3/5 of a whole). Just as we no longer believe the Sun revolves around the Earth, the Civil Rights Movement and the laws associated with it should teach us that freedom is the inherent right of all citizens and none should infringe on the rights of another in a fully just society. Your draconian, antiquated ideals logically do not support the current world in which we live.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Boycott Weddings For Equal Rights
A state law in Arizona has unleashed a torrent of unexpected consequences upon the welfare of the state. The law, Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, or Arizona SB 1070, was designed as a measure to greatly influence the problem of illegal immigration within the state. The law came amidst complaints to the Federal Government that they were not moving quickly enough on immigration reform, since immigration is by nature a federal liability, not the states'. It is a far-reaching law. Many agree it is a Constitutional violation. Many local law enforcement in Arizona have so far refused to obey the law, saying it puts them unequivocally in a sort of catch-22: obey the law by ostensibly profiling "illegal" immigrants by race, or be fined or reprimanded if other citizens do not think law enforcement officials are being strict enough when questioning "suspicious" people about their immigration status.
On top of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the state's law, other forms of protest have arisen. Now, I can't say for sure that these unintended consequences were unforeseen (as Arizona has had similar issues in the past), but the state legislature would have been wise to consider the possibility of backlash against enacting the law. Equal rights groups have called for boycotts of Arizona; high schools, notably one in Denver, cancelled school trips to the state; hotels in the state have reported troves of cancelled reservations; conferences cancelled; Major League Baseball has threatened to move its All-Star game from the state next year, etc. These various boycotts are feared to wreak havoc on the financial stability of the state and on local businesses. Even the Mexican President has urged travelers to steer clear of the state in fear they would be stopped, harassed, or even arrested due to the new law, which is especially troubling when 1/3 of the state's economy relies on revenue generated by tourists from Mexico. These actions prompted an almost immediate amendment to the law, said to dispel the notion that racial profiling would occur, but really not doing much of anything different.
I won't belabor the point further. Obviously, I disagree with the law. The purpose to this wide array of boycotts is to strike a chord of economic implications associated with the law. Initially people have concentrated their efforts and protests against racial implications of the law, but by boycotting the state, and businesses within the state, suddenly people who would not be directly affected by the law could feel the ramifications of it, and might reconsider their initial support of it. A similar move was reported after the financial collapse in the fall of 2008. Anger over the reckless greed and gambling of our nation's wealth led to the "Move Your Money" campaign, a push for individuals, small and large businesses, and governments to move their money from the 6 major banks. Wall Street continues even today to hold a smug arrogance over the country, a "If we fail, you fail" superiority only strengthening without reform and punishment. The 'Move Your Money" campaign was a retort, well an attempted response, to say that "No, we don't need you;" and "We don't get burned when you play with fire," stand. It's tough to pinpoint why the movement didn't catch like wildfire: are we scared? lazy? do we only talk big, but when time comes to take a stand, are we unwilling? "Money talks." It sure does. And as we inch closer and closer to a "Corporatocracy" money will speak greater volumes. Luckily, the Arizona boycott carries a bit more weight.
Maybe that knowledge, of how much anger there is pointed at Wall Street right now and how people still failed to act, should make me just stop writing and not even attempt this crazy notion that a similar boycott could be used in response to the fight for equal rights of LGBT individuals. Politicians only react these days when it seems the free market is in jeopardy, and somebody (read: campaign donors) are losing, or will lose money. What if those who fought for the equal rights of gays and lesbians agreed to stop marrying until legislation was passed granting everyone the freedom to marry? That' s a big sacrifice, I know. But take this example: a bachelorette party, who instead of going to a normal club to celebrate go to a gay club because they know they'll be able to have fun without the entirety of the room looking to take them home for a one-night stand. Now put yourselves in the shoes of the homosexuals who frequent these clubs because of the acceptance and comfort afforded them there, and instead have the fact that they cannot legally marry rubbed in their faces all night by these women. I don't blame the women, of course. They would just like to have a good time without having to fend off the advances of horny, single men for an evening; and I don't want to single out this situation, as I'm sure at some time or place a bachelor party has gone to a strip club where a gay woman, or women worked, and the women have felt the same way. But this all speaks to a greater problem: that certain individuals in our country do not have the same luxury, no, the same basic rights as others.
So what would happen if suddenly the wedding registries at Bed, Bath, and Beyond, or Target Stores, Inc. diminished to nothing? What would happen if prime honeymoon destinations suddenly stopped procuring reservations? What would happen if the diamond district in New York saw sales plummet, or your local Fire Hall stopped earning money from weekend receptions? You'd have a lot more people suddenly give a damn about the equal rights of others, people that normally do not need to worry themselves over how many weddings they book because business is booming. (Weddings, on average, generate about $40 billion a year in revenue in the US.). It's a hell of a sacrifice, but if just some people start to put the needs of others ahead of themselves then maybe we can achieve the unprecedented. We can start a call that hopefully would strike where politicians listen, their campaign donations, to end the injustice of inequality.
Okay, I've gone on for quite some time here. So, maybe I'll just leave you with this: Sarah Silverman probably said it best, "How does anyone whose for equal rights get married right now? That's like joining a country club that doesn't accept blacks or Jews." Well said.
On top of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the state's law, other forms of protest have arisen. Now, I can't say for sure that these unintended consequences were unforeseen (as Arizona has had similar issues in the past), but the state legislature would have been wise to consider the possibility of backlash against enacting the law. Equal rights groups have called for boycotts of Arizona; high schools, notably one in Denver, cancelled school trips to the state; hotels in the state have reported troves of cancelled reservations; conferences cancelled; Major League Baseball has threatened to move its All-Star game from the state next year, etc. These various boycotts are feared to wreak havoc on the financial stability of the state and on local businesses. Even the Mexican President has urged travelers to steer clear of the state in fear they would be stopped, harassed, or even arrested due to the new law, which is especially troubling when 1/3 of the state's economy relies on revenue generated by tourists from Mexico. These actions prompted an almost immediate amendment to the law, said to dispel the notion that racial profiling would occur, but really not doing much of anything different.
I won't belabor the point further. Obviously, I disagree with the law. The purpose to this wide array of boycotts is to strike a chord of economic implications associated with the law. Initially people have concentrated their efforts and protests against racial implications of the law, but by boycotting the state, and businesses within the state, suddenly people who would not be directly affected by the law could feel the ramifications of it, and might reconsider their initial support of it. A similar move was reported after the financial collapse in the fall of 2008. Anger over the reckless greed and gambling of our nation's wealth led to the "Move Your Money" campaign, a push for individuals, small and large businesses, and governments to move their money from the 6 major banks. Wall Street continues even today to hold a smug arrogance over the country, a "If we fail, you fail" superiority only strengthening without reform and punishment. The 'Move Your Money" campaign was a retort, well an attempted response, to say that "No, we don't need you;" and "We don't get burned when you play with fire," stand. It's tough to pinpoint why the movement didn't catch like wildfire: are we scared? lazy? do we only talk big, but when time comes to take a stand, are we unwilling? "Money talks." It sure does. And as we inch closer and closer to a "Corporatocracy" money will speak greater volumes. Luckily, the Arizona boycott carries a bit more weight.
Maybe that knowledge, of how much anger there is pointed at Wall Street right now and how people still failed to act, should make me just stop writing and not even attempt this crazy notion that a similar boycott could be used in response to the fight for equal rights of LGBT individuals. Politicians only react these days when it seems the free market is in jeopardy, and somebody (read: campaign donors) are losing, or will lose money. What if those who fought for the equal rights of gays and lesbians agreed to stop marrying until legislation was passed granting everyone the freedom to marry? That' s a big sacrifice, I know. But take this example: a bachelorette party, who instead of going to a normal club to celebrate go to a gay club because they know they'll be able to have fun without the entirety of the room looking to take them home for a one-night stand. Now put yourselves in the shoes of the homosexuals who frequent these clubs because of the acceptance and comfort afforded them there, and instead have the fact that they cannot legally marry rubbed in their faces all night by these women. I don't blame the women, of course. They would just like to have a good time without having to fend off the advances of horny, single men for an evening; and I don't want to single out this situation, as I'm sure at some time or place a bachelor party has gone to a strip club where a gay woman, or women worked, and the women have felt the same way. But this all speaks to a greater problem: that certain individuals in our country do not have the same luxury, no, the same basic rights as others.
So what would happen if suddenly the wedding registries at Bed, Bath, and Beyond, or Target Stores, Inc. diminished to nothing? What would happen if prime honeymoon destinations suddenly stopped procuring reservations? What would happen if the diamond district in New York saw sales plummet, or your local Fire Hall stopped earning money from weekend receptions? You'd have a lot more people suddenly give a damn about the equal rights of others, people that normally do not need to worry themselves over how many weddings they book because business is booming. (Weddings, on average, generate about $40 billion a year in revenue in the US.). It's a hell of a sacrifice, but if just some people start to put the needs of others ahead of themselves then maybe we can achieve the unprecedented. We can start a call that hopefully would strike where politicians listen, their campaign donations, to end the injustice of inequality.
Okay, I've gone on for quite some time here. So, maybe I'll just leave you with this: Sarah Silverman probably said it best, "How does anyone whose for equal rights get married right now? That's like joining a country club that doesn't accept blacks or Jews." Well said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)