As you head to the polls tomorrow to cast your ballot, ponder the following. I got this as a forward and have edited it for accuracy and fairness and post it here because I think it poses an important question:
What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage,
including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage
daughter?
What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law
Review and Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his
graduating class?
What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after a
severe disfiguring car accident to marry a rich heiress with whom
he had a long affair while he was still married?
What if Michelle Obama had become addicted
to pain killers and acquired them illegally through her
charitable organization?
What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five?
(The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of
corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the
larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)
What if Obama was known to display publicly, on many
occasions, a serious anger management problem?
What if Michelle Obama’s family had made their money from beer
distribution?
What if their educations had been reversed like this: John McCain: Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization
in International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude Barack Obama: United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899
Sarah Palin: University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political
Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Joseph Biden: Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism
If either their background or race were reversed
do you think the election numbers would be as close as they are?
We are on the cusp of history tonight, so I don’t mean to complain
or belittle anyone, but I wanted to send this to remind you that there is still prejudice in this country to overcome… and while we’re at it… those of you who live in California should stand up for progress towards equality and vote NO on Prop 8 to fight against prejudice of a different kind.
thanks,
justin
“When our days become dreary with low hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” - Martin Luther King
Remember how I said I had gay friends who have gotten married in California? Yesterday’s “letter to her dad” was one of them. Today’s debate on CNN highlights another couple who I respect and admire and consider to be a model relationship:
Meet Rose Greene and Helena Ruffin:
(and some black mormon guy who is against gay marriage)
A good friend of mine who is getting married next week (before the election) wrote this letter to her father not long ago. It touched me and I wanted to share it with you.
justin
Dear Dad,
There is something that I would like to discuss with you, or maybe it would be better said, there is something that I am feeling that I would like to share with you. As you know I am in a 12 ½ year loving relationship with a person that up until now I did not have the legal right to marry, but very much want that right. As mom has probably told you we will be married before Nov. 4th.
Not too long ago, under the terms of marriage, women belonged to the men they were pre-arranged to marry. Less than half a century ago, people of different races could not marry. Marriage has been redefined several times over in the last hundred years, and hopefully we at least agree that most of it has been for the better.
I guess in writing this, I’m hoping that, even though you are not gay, you believe that I should have the legal rights to support my American dream, even if it looks a little different then your own. And believe me when I say, it’s only a little different. You know what’s most important to me? Beyond the plethora of financial protections afforded married couples, I want the right to sit by the hospital bed of my partner if she were to get into an accident (or vice-versa). I can’t tell you how afraid I am that one day something would happen and I would be denied the right to be that support for her and to tell her I love her one last time. Anyone who loves someone should know that the thought of being purposefully denied that is terrifying, and worthy of shouting about.
Please hear me when I say I’m not asking for a religious ceremony, or any recognition from a church. But there are over a thousand rights granted to married couples. And if there truly is a separation of church and state… something the Constitution says there is… I don’t see why my family should not be encouraged to be committed to each other and protected by law in the same way my sister family is or yours. I believe that denying my family those rights to be more cruel and unjust than granting them ever could be. Because at the end of the day, your entire life will never be turned upside down if this proposition passes, but mine could… and so could the lives of hundreds of thousands of others like me.
Voting yes on prop 8 would be voting against my family. Against me, Dad.
Well, the wave of prominent as well as ordinary conservatives who are favoring “the most liberal member of the Senate” over “the maverick” is growing into a tidal wave created by the Obama Tsunami… or as I’m the first to say, Obamanami. Let’s just hope it gets big enough to engulf Joel and my father into its’ lovely wave of optimism and hope.
I’ve already chronicled many conservatives who are voting for Obama and many reasons they might be doing so… and now Andrew Sullivan who is perhaps the leader of the movement from the inside, has created a fantastically effective top ten reasons conservatives should vote for Obama. Here it is, in it’s entirety:
10. A body blow to racial identity politics. An end to the era of Jesse Jackson in black America.
9. Less debt. Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those earning over a quarter of a million. And he will spend on healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan and the environment. But so will McCain. He plans more spending on health, the environment and won’t touch defense of entitlements. And his refusal to touch taxes means an extra $4 trillion in debt over the massive increase presided over by Bush. And the CBO estimates that McCain’s plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama’s. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice.
8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. Obama has consistently cited the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush as his inspiration. McCain’s knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict, his commitment to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and his brinksmanship over Iran’s nuclear ambitions make him a far riskier choice for conservatives. The choice between Obama and McCain is like the choice between George H.W. Bush’s first term and George W.’s.
7. An ability to understand the difference between listening to generals and delegating foreign policy to them.
6. Temperament. Obama has the coolest, calmest demeanor of any president since Eisenhower. Conservatism values that kind of constancy, especially compared with the hot-headed, irrational impulsiveness of McCain.
5. Faith. Obama’s fusion of Christianity and reason, his non-fundamentalist faith, is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism.
4. A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive.
3. Two words: President Palin.
2. Conservative reform. Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant faux conservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. The survival of conservatism requires a temporary eclipse of today’s Republicanism. Losing would be the best thing to happen to conservatism since 1964. Back then, conservatives lost in a landslide for the right reasons. Now, Republicans are losing in a landslide for the wrong reasons.
1. The War Against Islamist terror. The strategy deployed by Bush and Cheney has failed. It has failed to destroy al Qaeda, except in a country, Iraq, where their presence was minimal before the US invasion. It has failed to bring any of the terrorists to justice, instead creating the excrescence of Gitmo, torture, secret sites, and the collapse of America’s reputation abroad. It has empowered Iran, allowed al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan, made the next vast generation of Muslims loathe America, and imperiled our alliances. We need smarter leadership of the war: balancing force with diplomacy, hard power with better p.r., deploying strategy rather than mere tactics, and self-confidence rather than a bunker mentality.
Those conservatives who remain convinced, as I do, that Islamist terror remains the greatest threat to the West cannot risk a perpetuation of the failed Manichean worldview of the past eight years, and cannot risk the possibility of McCain making rash decisions in the middle of a potentially catastrophic global conflict. If you are serious about the war on terror and believe it is a war we have to win, the only serious candidate is Barack Obama
While we’re at it, I’d like to re-compile my list of conservative supporters of Barack Obama into a top-ten list of my own.
For an interactive rundown of the conservative and newspaper editorial rejection of Palin, check out this Talking Points Memo interactive summary of “The Palin Effect”
The current proposition is mostly a response to the 2004 San Francisco same-sex marriages that effectively attempted to redefine the historically accepted connotation of marriage AND the recent overturning of Proposition 22 by the California Supreme Court. For a comprehensive history of this issue in California, visit the Wikipedia article. So I will ask this question…
How is it discriminatory to define a marriage as between a man and a woman when ALL legal rights are ALREADY afforded same sex couples in California? This question underscores the fact that the opposition has the express purpose of not settling with the already fair and non-discriminatory California domestic partnership laws. Instead, they seek to eventually overthrow the culturally and religiously accepted definition of marriage claiming that this is a civil rights issue.
Let’s see where this slope leads. If same-sex marriage is allowed to become a civil rights issues, which it is not, then ANY Church that elects to not marry a gay couple can be charged with discriminatory practice similar to how doctor’s could be charged during the Civil Rights era for refusing to treat African Americans. A Church charged with discrimination is subject to having it’s tax-exempt status revoked, thereby weakening the ability of Churches to succeed in America. While many in the opposition may publicly claim that Churches need not fear any litigation as a result of this issue, it is not hard to imagine how things will continue to shift in favor of a redefinition and how Churches will be a future battleground of this issue. From the Christian perspective, this could all very quickly turn into a cultural battle against Christianity. Of course this is all good news for skeptics of Christianity and of religion in general who behind closed doors and in some public settings will champion the decline of Christian influence in our society.
What opponents to prop 8 will also not tell you is that “As of June 17, 2008, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state of California.” (from the same Wikipedia article) So same sex marriage has effectively been LEGAL for the last 5 months. This fact is a result of a 4-3 decision of the California Supreme Court that found a previous proposition (prop 22) in violation of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. But again, how can there be a violation of the equal protection clause if same sex couples are already granted the SAME rights as heterosexual marriages under the Domestic Partnership law of 1999?
It is because of this decision that the definition of “marriage” should be written into the California constitution. This WILL NOT take away ANY legal protections and rights ALREADY afforded same sex couples.
This is clearly about the definition of marriage and not about equal rights. The equal rights already exist. Terrific! Leave the definition of marriage, which holds so much significance to the religious and culturally conservative elements in our society, alone!!!
Wednesday’s Washington Post had an article stating that Al Quaeda prefers to have McCain elected as USA’s next president. For the record, I don’t put a lot of stock into this… but if the same website had expressed support for Obama, you can bet McCain would be using that in his stump speeches. You can bet that Obama will not stoop to that level, though.
The rationale for the “endorsement” is extremely interesting, though. As they sometimes do, Al Quaeda has a very logical argument for their opinion:
“The idea in the jihadist forums is that McCain would be a faithful ’son of Bush’ — someone they see as a jingoist and a war hawk,” Raisman said. “They think that, to succeed in a war of attrition, they need a leader in Washington like McCain.”
The idea that Bush has made extremism worse by invading and inflaming the Muslim world is well supported by what they are saying. It’s also important to note that this is not just one extremist website
In any event, the comments summarized what has emerged as a consensus view on extremist sites, said Adam Raisman, a senior analyst for the Site Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamist Web pages.
Bottom line: It’s only news because it’s coming from Al Quaeda… but it’s an important argument because it’s true. We need a completely different kind of leadership in Washington… leadership that will do a better job in the complex war we’re now fighting. We don’t need another war loving maverick.
Despite our differences on the war and religion and marriage, I’m pretty sure that Joel and I can agree that enshrining the State or Federal Constitution with a discriminatory law like Prop 8 is wrong.
The Mormon church has led a bitter fight against equality in marriage in California, even including dirty blackmail tactics against corporations who support it like Apple and Google. (others include AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, PG&E and Levi Strauss) But it didn’t work… the companies went public against discrimination and for constitutional equality:
Apple:
Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.
Google:
While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 — we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.
I agree with Apple and Google that this is a moral issue about fundamental equal rights that no one has the right to take away from anyone, including homosexuals. I know several same-sex couples, including a few who have gotten married recently and a few who raise children. They are just as loving, if not more so, to their children and their partners than any heterosexual couple I know. Isn’t love what people and especially children crave? Love and a stable home environment does wonders for children and, FYI, having gay parents does not make you gay.
It’s pure discrimination. Don’t vote for it.
Check out this great TV ad they recently came out with that is a spoof on Apple’s “Get a Mac” ads:
