After several days in the great state of Vermont visiting with wonderful friends and enjoying a Joan Baez concert in Rutland, I've come home to a minestra of news. Some good, very good, and the one on voting rights, very awful.
First, the awful, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act:
The SCOTUS majority must actually believe that the worst of the southern states would have brought about the changes in voting rights for minorities without the federal government stepping in. And they must also believe that those reddest of red states won't set in place impediments to voting for minorities who traditionally vote for the Democratic Party in those states.
Why would minorities feel confident about their ability to vote, when it took federal intervention to right those awful wrongs that were endemic in those reddest of red states?
People aren't racist anymore, you say? Really. Where did all those racist jokes and cartoons and jibes at the first bi-racial president about his being "lazy" or not a real American come from? HINT: Not from local Democratic Party politicians in liberal states. Those ideas and suspicions about Mr. Obama and his "angry" and "uppity" wife [often depicted as a primate] came from pols associated with traditionally conservative states and the Republican Party.
And to my conservative friends who believe there is no need to oversee how individual states develop their voting requirements, please read THIS. It is NOT a matter of a simple ID, which can be easily procured. Texas is going to make it more difficult for minorities to vote. And now they can do so without any oversight by the feds.
I believe there is still a strong undercurrent of racism in this country, and the election of Mr. Obama has caused it, like a bloated corpse, to rise from the murky depths of this nation's soul to remind us all of what we had hoped was gone forever.
The Return of Jim Crow
The Good and the Very Good:
5-4 Vote Extends Federal Benefits to Same-Sex Spouses
The Supreme Court issued a pair of opinions expanding gay rights, ruling unconstitutional a law denying federal benefits to married same-sex couples and effectively permitting gay marriage in California.
The opinion, delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy:
"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity...By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."
UPDATE:
"GOP demanding Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage
(Yahoo News) Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas, and other conservative members of Congress say they will attempt to introduce in the coming days a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Following the Supreme Court's ruling deeming the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, several Republicans expressed their disappointment with the decision and vowed to take action. Apparently, this means an amendment to the Constitution."
Senator Rand Paul (Crackpot, KY) tried to backpedal on his idiotic statement on same-sex marriage. What he and other loonies on this subject apparently haven't the brains to understand is that CONSENTING ADULTS marrying each other will not automatically confer legality to adults marrying non-consenting children and animals. A German Shepherd dog or a box turtle cannot say "yes" to having sex with a human being, neither can a child give his or her "consent" to an adult who wants to have sex with an underage human being.
Conservatives and Libertarians apparently have a difficult time in understanding this simple fact, therefore, they make jackasses of themselves when they state that allowing consenting adults to marry each other will lead to beastiality and pederasty.
13 comments:
the CONSERVATIVE Democrats who ran the south did all they could to suppress minority voting...once LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, the CONSERVATIVE Democratic south turned to the Republican Party, and has stayed with it since then...when conservatives talk about how the Democrats suppressed minorities in the south, they conveniently ignore the FACT that these were CONSERVATIVE Democrats, not liberals, and these states went over to the Republican party...it is a CONSERVATIVE value to deny and suppress minorities...just look at our immigration problems...
At a time when restrictive voter laws are being passed in State Houses and challenged in the courts, for the Supreme Court to say Sec. 4 is outdated, is another example of conservatives denying reality. Lets see how long it takes for voting abuses to rise again, as they did in the last election. In a short time whites will become a minority and experience the inevitable discrimination from the majority. Then whites will be screaming for laws to protect them, but they will be living in a time when the Supreme Court has ruled that protection for minorities in the voting process, is unnecessary. Really? Me thinks the best and brightest (Supreme Court Justices) have no clue about human behavior. No surprise since they come from their Ivory towers of privileged white culture. The justices disdain for the protection of minority rights goes to the core of what we stand for in a most negative manner.
Shaw, here's where I am struggling...
I will admit upfront that what I am going to say could be offensive...
It seems as if SCOTUS says consenting adults have a right to their relationships as long as they are between consenting adults.
On what basis does government have a right, or ability, to deny a person multiple spouses if all parties agree on the relationship?
Can't a polygamist family claim that they too are being treated unfairly as federal law now defines marriage as between 2 people?
On what legal basis are we able to claim that 3 people should be illegal?
Does government have a role in regulating behavior, even between consenting adults, and if so, how is that role adjudicated?
And please, know that I am not trying to be a jerk and I am not even raising this issue from a religious standpoint.
I am just throwing it out for discussion thinking about future possibilities...
Government should have zero role in marriage of ANY kind
Dave: "On what basis does government have a right, or ability, to deny a person multiple spouses if all parties agree on the relationship?"
From a libertarian point of view, I would think NONE. If consenting adults want to enter into that sort of Biblical relationship, why would the government have any say in it?
Dave: "Can't a polygamist family claim that they too are being treated unfairly as federal law now defines marriage as between 2 people?"
I would think that a polygamist or polyandrist would have trouble with a government that finds those marital arrangements illegal.
So long as it does no harm to other people, why should those arrangements be illegal?
BTW, Dave, our culture already practices polygamy and polyandry, but in a serial fashion.
Men and women have more than one spouse through divorce and remarriage. Some, like Elizabeth Taylor, and Rush Limbaugh, have had serial marriages.
Does the government have any business in how people arrange their marital lives?
I would think that people who are religious would follow their religion's sanctions on such matters; but those who do not follow any religion should not be constrained by the government.
I suspect that there are also many people in polygamous relationships, a man with more than one woman (wife plus mistresses). Same for the woman. The difference is that there is no legal advantage to being married to more than one person, so there is no need to call it multiple marriage.
Give a person another deduction for the second wife and you have provided incentive to make it legal.
In the US isn't marriage an outdated concept. What purpose does it serve when the divorce rate is so high that the commitment level is minimized. Is it so we legitimize having children, why when the hollywood elite have kids and sometimes marry and having sex anymore has no more significance than brushing your teeth.
Marriage was started as a religious act which later became law. Surprising atheists ever get married.
As to the voting rights issue. The North has always felt superior to the South and that law was a way to keep southerners "in line". Looks like we are into equality now.
skud: "In the US isn't marriage an outdated concept. What purpose does it serve when the divorce rate is so high that the commitment level is minimized."
The divorce rate in the US overall is declining. The lowest divorce rate in the US is in Massachusetts, where people are the least religious. The most religious states have the highest divorce rates. Do some research before you shoot off your mouth.
skud: "Marriage was started as a religious act which later became law. Surprising atheists ever get married."
As I said above, you've got it completely wrong, as ususal, because you normally come here and comment with no facts. In fact, in the south, where we find THE MOST RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, we also find the highest divorce rates. Divorce rates among atheist are also among the LOWEST. Again, skud, you comment from ignorance.
skud: "As to the voting rights issue. The North has always felt superior to the South and that law was a way to keep southerners "in line"."
If you had any knowledge of history, skud, which obviously you don't, you'd know that the south had an abominable recond on allowing African-Americans to vote. No A.A.s bothered because of the restrictions imposed by the various southern states to keep them from doing so. And now, TODAY, after the gutting of the VRA, SIX SOUTHERN states are moving to implement restrictions on voting.
No northeastern states, to my knowledge, have done so.
Can you explain why? Is it just because the North feels "superior?"
Shaw
I expected nothing other than an attack and you did not disappoint. You agreed with me while you were on the attack.
Just so you are clear, "SIX SOUTHERN states are moving to implement restrictions on voting". the Southern state are not trying to restrict people from voting, they are just implementing checks to make sure voters are eligible to vote.
Those verifications apply to everyone not just Democrats.
skud, you came here and complained about the high divorce rate, which, in fact, is not true. Divorce rates are falling.
Divorce rates are highest in traditionally religious states. That's not an attack, that's a fact.
Then you wondered why atheists bother to marry--an attack on nonbelievers. I pointed out to you that nonbelievers have a lower divorce rate than do believers, and you call that an attack.
You came here, as you usually do, and make comments that are untrue or else you just whine.
I wondered why it is mainly the southern states that are implementing these voter "checks" to make sure voters are eligible to vote.
No states here in the northeast are doing this. Can you explain why?
For example, in Texas, a gun permit will allow you to vote but if you have a college ID or veteran's ID, you're out of luck.
Can you explain why that is?
Also:
"U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey joined seven others Wednesday in filing a federal lawsuit to keep Texas from enforcing its voter ID law.
Veasey, D-Fort Worth, filed the papers in Corpus Christi federal court, calling the requirement to show a state-issued photo ID card at the ballot box unconstitutional.
The law “would have the effect of denying thousands of Texas voters the ability to vote in person, a large number of whom would be disenfranchised entirely since absentee voting in Texas is available to only certain specified categories of voters,” the lawsuit says.
It was filed one day after the U.S. Supreme Court declared a section of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. That decision overthrew a decision by federal judges in Washington that Texas could not enforce the voter ID law.
The Washington court determined that the voter ID law was an example of “intentional discrimination” against minorities and used its authority under the Voting Rights Act to stop its enforcement."
Shaw,
You asked skud "No states here in the northeast are doing this. Can you explain why?"
Perhaps people in the northeast are more honest than people in the south? Is that what you are saying, skud?
Post a Comment