Part two of my summer Arabic extravaganza has started! Last week I moved to Morocco to enroll in Al-Akawayn University's summer Arabic program. Al-Akhawayn (click link to see wiki page of university and a picture) is a beautiful place. We will have class 5 hours a day, and apparently there will be about that much homework each evening. Hopefully it whips be back into shape before I head to grad school this fall - I fear I've gotten lazy in the past couple years. I will have a Moroccan roommate (don't know this person yet), and I don't have internet in my room, which should be great for studying but terrible for keeping in touch and staying afloat with world affairs. I promise to respond to e-mails, so please keep in touch!
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Enshrining Bigotry
Minnesota’s recent push to vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is not a move to “let the people have a say,” it is bigotry in its most raw form. The best part of the debate is that the two sides are talking past each other when they don’t have to: attacking the Republican argument directly better highlights the contradiction therein.
Democrats have a host of familiar, and very valid, arguments. Voting on the rights of a minority is not appropriate. Lawmakers should be using the last weeks of the season to focus on the budget, not passing constitutional amendments targeting minorities (especially when there is already a state law banning gay marriage!). And when one Republican said, “People have indicated they would like the opportunity to define marriage. They don’t want to leave it up to the courts,” Democrats rightly retorted: That’s what courts are for - not allowing populist sentiments to target minorities. But if we dissect the Republican argument, we see it for what it is: an embarrassment to the great state of Minnesota, driven mostly by fear.
Republicans are coyly using populist rhetoric to get away with doing something very shameful. They know that the only time a state beat a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was in 2006 in Arizona, where two years later a similar amendment passed. But such amendments won’t be possible forever, and the ones that do pass thankfully won't be around forever either. Public opinion is quickly swinging. That’s why there has been a mad-dash by Republicans nation-wide to stall the inevitable advent of marriage equality. Republicans know that the amendments aren’t passing by overwhelming majorities anymore, and that the number of people nation-wide who approve of same-sex marriage rises every year. CNN now reports that more than half of the population nation-wide approves, and this poll favored people with land-line phones - disproportionally older people who are more likely to vote against same-sex marriage. Republicans are running out of time to enshrine hatred. So they resort to constitutional amendments. Why? Constitutional amendments are more difficult to overturn than mere laws.
Republicans don’t just want people to vote on marriage equality (which is heinous in and of itself), they want people now to dictate morality to future generations. Republicans are arguing that people in 5 and 10 years don’t deserve the same “say” that they’re demanding now. In 5-10 years, the law would likely be overturned, either by popular vote or a court. Writing discrimination into the constitution will make it much more durable.
Most exciting of all, this amendment is a tacit admission that Republicans are on the wrong side of history. They see the momentum and know what's coming, and yet they're still choosing to stand on the side of hatred and intolerance, hoping to delay same-sex marriage for a couple extra years. They acknowledge that they've lost the war. Otherwise, they'd be more likely to trust people in 5-10 years to make up their own minds as to whether they'd like to repeal the anti-same-sex marriage laws.
Our nation’s courts – comprised of our country’s legal experts – are finally figuring out that LGBT people are an historically marginalized minority. People nation-wide are meeting LGBT friends and family members and seeing that they're totally normal people with the same motivations and life goals as anyone else. It's smashing our hetero-centric mindsets. And instead of welcoming this process – a process that recognizes that love is something to be celebrated, and that will inspire fewer teens to kill themselves every year – social conservatives are doing what they like doing most: subjecting their neighbors to their supposedly heightened sense of morality through legislation that will embarrass our grandchildren when they look back and wonder how we could have been so backward. Republicans in Minnesota aren’t motivated by "wanting the people to decide” – they’re driven by fear of the future, a rejection of loving families, and a distrust of legal experts. Minnesota, you deserve better. It’s time to say no to bigotry. It’s time to beat this amendment.
-----------------------
A couple links:
A nice editorial from Winona, MN - not a huge town by any means. I'm impressed.
A republican law school professor who does not support gay marriage talks about why this constitutional amendment is still a terrible idea.
A MN Senator: "How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?"
Another scathing piece from the Star Tribune
Great summary of articles written state-wide - turns out ZERO editorial boards have come out in favor of this amendment, which really makes one wonder which "people" are asking for this to be brought to a vote, as one state senator keeps claiming.
Democrats have a host of familiar, and very valid, arguments. Voting on the rights of a minority is not appropriate. Lawmakers should be using the last weeks of the season to focus on the budget, not passing constitutional amendments targeting minorities (especially when there is already a state law banning gay marriage!). And when one Republican said, “People have indicated they would like the opportunity to define marriage. They don’t want to leave it up to the courts,” Democrats rightly retorted: That’s what courts are for - not allowing populist sentiments to target minorities. But if we dissect the Republican argument, we see it for what it is: an embarrassment to the great state of Minnesota, driven mostly by fear.
Republicans are coyly using populist rhetoric to get away with doing something very shameful. They know that the only time a state beat a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was in 2006 in Arizona, where two years later a similar amendment passed. But such amendments won’t be possible forever, and the ones that do pass thankfully won't be around forever either. Public opinion is quickly swinging. That’s why there has been a mad-dash by Republicans nation-wide to stall the inevitable advent of marriage equality. Republicans know that the amendments aren’t passing by overwhelming majorities anymore, and that the number of people nation-wide who approve of same-sex marriage rises every year. CNN now reports that more than half of the population nation-wide approves, and this poll favored people with land-line phones - disproportionally older people who are more likely to vote against same-sex marriage. Republicans are running out of time to enshrine hatred. So they resort to constitutional amendments. Why? Constitutional amendments are more difficult to overturn than mere laws.
Republicans don’t just want people to vote on marriage equality (which is heinous in and of itself), they want people now to dictate morality to future generations. Republicans are arguing that people in 5 and 10 years don’t deserve the same “say” that they’re demanding now. In 5-10 years, the law would likely be overturned, either by popular vote or a court. Writing discrimination into the constitution will make it much more durable.
Most exciting of all, this amendment is a tacit admission that Republicans are on the wrong side of history. They see the momentum and know what's coming, and yet they're still choosing to stand on the side of hatred and intolerance, hoping to delay same-sex marriage for a couple extra years. They acknowledge that they've lost the war. Otherwise, they'd be more likely to trust people in 5-10 years to make up their own minds as to whether they'd like to repeal the anti-same-sex marriage laws.
Our nation’s courts – comprised of our country’s legal experts – are finally figuring out that LGBT people are an historically marginalized minority. People nation-wide are meeting LGBT friends and family members and seeing that they're totally normal people with the same motivations and life goals as anyone else. It's smashing our hetero-centric mindsets. And instead of welcoming this process – a process that recognizes that love is something to be celebrated, and that will inspire fewer teens to kill themselves every year – social conservatives are doing what they like doing most: subjecting their neighbors to their supposedly heightened sense of morality through legislation that will embarrass our grandchildren when they look back and wonder how we could have been so backward. Republicans in Minnesota aren’t motivated by "wanting the people to decide” – they’re driven by fear of the future, a rejection of loving families, and a distrust of legal experts. Minnesota, you deserve better. It’s time to say no to bigotry. It’s time to beat this amendment.
-----------------------
A couple links:
A nice editorial from Winona, MN - not a huge town by any means. I'm impressed.
A republican law school professor who does not support gay marriage talks about why this constitutional amendment is still a terrible idea.
A MN Senator: "How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?"
Another scathing piece from the Star Tribune
Great summary of articles written state-wide - turns out ZERO editorial boards have come out in favor of this amendment, which really makes one wonder which "people" are asking for this to be brought to a vote, as one state senator keeps claiming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)