From CNN.com:

The Obama administration is objecting to a request for an immediate halt to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy after a federal court ruled that the policy barring gays from serving openly is unconstitutional.The government calls a worldwide cessation of the policy “untenable,” saying an injunction should be limited to the plaintiff, the gay political group Log Cabin Republicans, and members who it claims are gays and lesbians serving in the military.

The government also states that an immediate termination of the 17-year-old policy may pose a threat to the military.

Sure sounds eerily familiar. Why should the “feds” insert themselves into a local matter? If a private organization files a federal suit and wins on behalf of a group that is discriminated against, that suit should only apply to the specific parties mentioned in the lawsuit. And, if the two groups (homosexuals and heterosexuals) serve together in the military it will pose a threat to everyone.

King, the Southern Christian Leadership Counsel (SCLC), and the NAACP brought legal action against segregation laws in various cities in the South. They literally tried to make a “federal case” out of the segregation policies. The Supremes weighed in, true.

But I do not believe we would have been content had the federal government taken a “hands off approach” with respect to removing the segregation policies of specific jurisdictions and types of public accommodation and education. “Well, gee. Your suit was in Alameda county. So we don’t think you should make the federal government force the folks in San Mateo county — or all counties for that matter — to allow blacks to be able to swim with whites in public pools. Besides, if we have the races sharing swimming pools throughout the Bay Area the world will come to an end.”

I realize it isn’t that bad. But still! It’s easy to see why some would consider it to be the Obama administration’s position that is completely “untenable”, not the court’s.

On the other hand, what about people who hold a different view? The argument would have to be that (on the swimming example) changing to interracial swimming pools is an unreasonable disruption in how people in the Bay Area have lived their lives and organized their cities for generations. In fact, it’ll be so disruptive that the whole nature of “swimming in a public pool” will change so radically that our “world” is going to fall apart.

It reminds me of the problem King addresses. The so-called “friends” of desegregation said that King was moving “too fast”. That he needed to “slow down”. “You’re asking for too much change too soon. It’s too disruptive. Not yet. Wait.” King’s response is telling. We’ll be reading some parts of it in his “Why We Can’t Wait”.

Share/Bookmark

It appears Seton Hall University will offer a controversial course on gay marriage over the objections of Newark Archbishop John J. Myers, according to the professor scheduled to teach the class.The undergraduate seminar course — called “The Politics of Gay Marriage” — is to begin Tuesday with about two dozen students, said W. King Mott, an associate professor of political science.

“The class is happening. I’ve never heard that it wasn’t,” said Mott, who has sent the syllabus to the enrolled students.

The course is being taught by an openly gay man, already demoted from an high level administrative post of Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. He was demoted after writing a letter challenging the church’s position on homosexuality.

I’m writing to ask him for a copy of the syllabus. Perhaps it’ll give us further material for discussing the issue with respect to the texts of King.

Share/Bookmark

I know that some in the “traditional” civil rights community (read “African American” civil rights leaders) reject the notion that gay rights involve civil rights. This is partly due, of course, to the profound influence of religion in the historical civil rights movement. We’ve seen the influence of religion on King.

We also examined the philosophical foundation of King’s thinking about civil rights. Now, some think that King would not include LGBTQ issues under the rubric of civil rights. Others think that he would take seriously his own words, “injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere.” From my perspective, the answer to WWKD? – what would King do? – is as complicated as the question I asked at the end of the semester: would either Thoreau or King have tried to convince Socrates to escape from prison? There are good arguments on both sides of the issue.

Here is a description from the Chronicle of Higher Education of a recent boycott against a hotel that was hosting a meeting of the American Historical Association because the hotel owner fought strongly against same-sex marriage.

Tension over gay-rights protests and a depressed job market set a dismal tone at the American Historical Association’s annual conference…

About 75 activists chanted “boycott” and cheered when Cleve Jones, the well-known gay-rights activist, said his message for the association was that “history is on our side.” In an interview, Mr. Jones said the association’s decision to hold a session on gay and lesbian history only “added insult to injury.” As for the scholars of gay and lesbian history, Mr. Jones said that he was sure they were “well-meaning” but that history would record only that they chose not to honor the boycott.

Share/Bookmark

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 4.  Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without
discrimination or preference are guaranteed.  This liberty of
conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent
with the peace or safety of the State.  The Legislature shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion.
A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of
his or her opinions on religious beliefs.

Well, here’s religion. No discrimination on that basis. But what if a person’s “free exercise” of religion means that she does (or does not) support certain acts. For example, what if your religious views lead you to not hire a Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness? Or a Mormon employer who does not want to hire someone who is gay? Does it go against the peace and safety of the State? I suppose if the discrimination leads to riots, it would. This was one of the criticisms King faced. “Slow down. You’re rocking the boat. You’ll make the people in power angry. If you don’t move faster, there will be riots in the streets.” And on and on.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 6.  Slavery is prohibited.  Involuntary servitude is prohibited
except to punish crime.

This is a nice addition. The next bit is crucial.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 7.  (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws;

As I understand it, the central issue being argued before the Federal Appeal’s court starting today (Jan 11, 2009), is the very point of equal protection. One class of people cannot be treated differently. That would seem to be the common sense view. However, the legal interpretation of this is a bit different. I’m not a legal scholar. Things a more complicated than that.

(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.

This ought to be a hard bit to argue against with respect to same-sex marriage. If marriage is a privilege and a class of persons tells another group that they can’t have the same privilege. We discussed the knee-jerk reaction that everyone is “equal”. Is it discriminating against people who are under 4ft 8in when it comes to getting on a ride at Disneyland? Is it discriminatory to have separate privileges for 9th graders that are different from 2nd graders?

And, drumroll…

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 7.5.  Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.

I think this is the bit that Prop. 8 reaffirmed. Or it might be that it is what Prop. 8 mandated. Bottom line: Article 1, Sec. 7.5 is the law in California.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 8.  A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing
a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race,
creed, color, or national or ethnic origin.

Interesting that there’s no “religion” here. “Creed” might be a substitute for “religion”. There’s also nothing here about “sexual orientation”.

Share/Bookmark