xchrom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:26 PM
Original message |
Is lgbtiq equality a states rights issue? Or is it a national issue |
|
That should be spear headed the way LBJ did racial equality issues?
|
elleng
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:27 PM
Response to Original message |
Claudia Jones
(464 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
elleng
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
13. Not necessarily; depends on particular pieces of legislation. |
|
The fight should be made in 'both' places, imo.
|
Claudia Jones
(464 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
Claudia Jones
(464 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:28 PM
Response to Original message |
2. there should be no controversy |
|
Amendment XIV Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
|
The Genealogist
(495 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:28 PM
Response to Original message |
3. It is an all levels issue |
|
Federal, state and local.
|
Claudia Jones
(464 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
Local governments cannot legally deprive any citizens of equal rights and equal protection on any pretext.
|
The Genealogist
(495 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
14. They can institute programs like like domestic partner benefits that increase equality |
|
Edited on Wed Sep-14-11 08:47 PM by The Genealogist
edited to clarify
|
Claudia Jones
(464 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
17. rights don't have degrees |
|
Rights either are respected, or they are not. There are not degrees.
"Equal" does not mean equal in outcome, it means equal in opportunity and protection.
|
Posteritatis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #17 |
36. I'm astonished at the number of people who don't seem to get that very simple point. (nt) |
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
50. That's why I'd rather it were referred to as... |
|
Human rights issues... anything else just isn't enough.
|
LonePirate
(898 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:28 PM
Response to Original message |
4. It certainly does not seem to be an important issue for Obama or for many people here at DU. |
|
Yes, we have plenty of critical issues facing this country and LGBT is certainly one them.
|
Claudia Jones
(464 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. equal rights is everyone's cause |
|
Equal rights denied to any of us jeopardize the rights of all of us.
|
Ohio Joe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:32 PM
Response to Original message |
8. I've seen it as a national issue |
|
The whole, all men are created equal, thing. But the repugs are legislating it away at a state level... I suspect to keep attention diverted and splintered from a national effort.
|
demmiblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:32 PM
Response to Original message |
MADem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:33 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Do you want the real answer, the right answer, or the politically expedient answer? |
|
The fact of the matter is this--no one should give a shit what people do (or don't do) with their fiddly bits. Marry who you like--or not. You shouldn't get more credit if you are married, or less if you aren't--IMO. Work where you're qualified, without regard to your personal associations. That makes sense to me. Wish it did to everyone else, but we aren't there yet.
However, as every issue that comes to the fore during an election year, this one will probably be shoved off onto the "states' rights" plate for now, because the federal government does not want to be put in the position of dictating to the states what they can or cannot do with regard to this issue (at least not in the near term). There will come a point when most states see the light, and then and only then will the feds get on board.
IMO.
|
xchrom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
21. Should the Feds have dictated to the states re: racial equality? |
|
You boil this down to 'fiddly bits' - I can be fired from my job & turned out of my home - depending on where I am - what does THAT have to do w/ my fiddly bits?
|
MADem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
24. Go back to the context of the times. That didn't happen in a vacuum. |
|
LBJ didn't just sit down and write a real Civil Rights Act (as opposed to the bullshit one that went down under Eisenhower that meant little to most people with a hue to their epidermis). Shit happened, people weighed in, there was discussion, demonstrations, violence, and great personal sacrifice, to include the murder of activists, over a period of YEARS before that act was signed.
I don't "boil this down to fiddly bits"--I boil it down to "NO ONE SHOULD GIVE A SHIT." Put the emphasis on the right part of the sentence, PLEASE, and don't make me the enemy because I offered up an opinion that will probably be how it goes down over the course of the next few years.
If I ruled the world, I'd make equal rights an international law, but I don't have that power.
I do have powers of observation though, and I have offered an OPINION based on those.
|
xchrom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
34. Um - I was there for it. & don't bring up fiddly where they |
|
Aren't appropriate.
Lgbtiq equality doesn't involve our fiddly bits - unless you're a right winger.
All too often this what 'liberal' don't get.
& you're not getting it.
& Obama - if this had been an issue of racial discrimination in NC - damn SURE would have mentioned it in Charlotte.
|
TriMera
(885 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:34 PM
Response to Original message |
SidDithers
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:36 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Marriage equality should be a federal issue... |
|
Gay rights are civil rights.
Sid
|
sudopod
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
justiceischeap
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
47. Thanks but it goes beyond marriage. |
|
We can still get fired from our jobs, evicted from our homes and we're often denied adoption rights.
|
Bluenorthwest
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:51 PM
Response to Original message |
16. Obama says it should all be up to the States, and he's wrong. |
|
It is a national issue, I expect my 14th amendment rights.
|
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 08:53 PM
Response to Original message |
18. To me it is national because it is about rights. I wrote something I hope |
|
is in the News & Observer by the end of the week.
|
w8liftinglady
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 09:00 PM
Response to Original message |
19. A national issue- equality across state lines is critical |
|
...including survivor benefits.
|
kelly1mm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 09:06 PM
Response to Original message |
20. 2nd Amendment rights are going national (concealed carry permits) |
|
as there should not be state by state civil rights and the full faith and credit clause. All civil rights should national in scope.
|
eShirl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 09:12 PM
Response to Original message |
22. If the issue of civil rights is not a federal issue, I don't know what is. |
Divine Discontent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
23. eShirl has spoken, and therefore I don't need to! +1 |
TriMera
(885 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 09:36 PM
Response to Original message |
Spider Jerusalem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 09:45 PM
Response to Original message |
27. The "states' rights" argument does nothing but provide cover for bigots |
|
if the civil rights issue had been left up to the states there'd still be segregation and poll taxes in some places.
|
Hosnon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 09:48 PM
Response to Original message |
28. Federally protected civil rights are inherently national. |
|
They can be advocated and promoted on the state level, but ultimately uniformity is required.
|
WinkyDink
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 09:54 PM
Response to Original message |
29. Rights are for all citizens of the nation. |
backscatter712
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 09:59 PM
Response to Original message |
|
If you ask me, I think states-rights should be going the way of the dodo. They've only been used to justify anti-American bullshit like slavery, Jim Crow, anti-LGBT laws, etc.
|
Starry Messenger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 10:00 PM
Response to Original message |
blkmusclmachine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 10:08 PM
Response to Original message |
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-14-11 10:09 PM
Response to Original message |
33. Both as most things would be |
TriMera
(885 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #33 |
35. Do you not understand the context of civil rights? |
|
Here's the question: Should my civil rights be voted on by the majority? There was a time that a democrat would not even have to think about the right answer to that question.
|
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #35 |
38. Could you be more general and vague? |
|
What would be wrong with a state granting those rights? Domestic relations laws are state laws, and Massachusetts I believe is one state that made that leap forward. Hawaii also.
If you want to talk about the states that refuse to, that's another thing.
|
Claudia Jones
(464 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #38 |
40. rights cannot be "granted" |
|
You are talking about permissions being granted, and that is the opposite of rights being acknowledged.
Thinking of GLBT equality as a permission granted, a favor bestowed, is a denial of rights not an affirmation of them.
|
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #40 |
46. They still must be acknowledged by a society |
|
And a US state recognizing them is not small potatoes.
|
Claudia Jones
(464 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #46 |
51. smaller potatoes then |
|
Not sure where you are going with this or why you persist in arguing. No doubt it is contingent upon which position the White House happens to be taking, and not any serious thought on the issue.
Whether or not any particular state decides to acknowledge rights, the question was this: is it better determined at the federal or at the state level? In other words, which potatoes are bigger and which are smaller?
|
MrSlayer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 04:35 AM
Response to Original message |
37. Civil rights and human rights should never be left up to the electorate to decide. |
|
Equal rights for all should mean equal rights for all.
|
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
|
These are human rights issues, nothing less. We need to lose the words that divide us, IMHO. We are all humans, period.
|
Nuclear Unicorn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 09:41 AM
Response to Original message |
39. Personal then local then national |
|
Hate is wrong, Discrimination is wrong. People should aspire to be the best that they can be.
If the person cannot tell right from wrong hopefully those immediately around them, their family, friends and co-workers can help them see the light.
Even then it is the job of government to protect our rights.
|
Claudia Jones
(464 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #39 |
|
That is incorrect.
The issue here is whether or not people have power over others, power to do them harm. That is external, it exists in objective reality and can be addressed and remedied.
First comes the oppression, then comes the bigotry. Making it a matter of people's personal individual feelings makes it unsolvable. When the conditions change people's attitudes will change. Changing people's attitudes will not necessarily change the conditions. An example of this is racism. First came slavery, then came the attitudes we call "racism" - a set of rationalizations and justifications for slavery. The attitudes we call racism persist so long as the inequality exists, as an effect of those conditions.
|
Nuclear Unicorn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #41 |
42. I totally get where you're coming from and I've said as much myself |
|
so no disagreement here.
But I'm sure you'll also agree that 300 million people saying, "it's the right thing to do" is better than those same people saying, "Well, I suppose I have to obey the law."
Strictly speaking from my dream world of course. I hope someday it's more than just a dream.
|
Claudia Jones
(464 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #42 |
|
Edited on Thu Sep-15-11 03:28 PM by Claudia Jones
But "it is the right thing to do" comes from an accurate perception of objective reality, not from a change in attitude.
We saw that in that video of the episode where bystanders spontaneously and quickly jumped into action and working together did what was needed - they lifted a burning car off of an injured biker. It was their clear perception of the situation that led to action, not weeks of consciousness-raising sessions about helping our fellow man as the right thing to do.
Our task is not one of "selling" anything - although people will project that on to us and assume that we are - not to preach at people and convert them to new beliefs or attitudes, not to scold or blame or boss them around, but rather to present objective reality about the conditions so that more people can see through the lying and deception and accurately perceive reality. Motivation, action and cooperation will automatically follow. That is because it is not human nature to be selfish, greedy and brutal, despite what those defending the powerful and the status quo would have us believe. Rather, if anything could be called "human nature" it is self-sacrifice, altruism and cooperation.
|
dembotoz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 02:50 PM
Response to Original message |
43. i would hope national because with states you will always-yes always |
|
have areas that would deny rights to somebody.
i don't think i could count on wisconsin to do the right thing--and we have (had) a reputation for being progressive.
with the power of the tea party these days i do not think the states can be trusted to do anything--actually i would be nervous about federal too.
|
mitchtv
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 02:51 PM
Response to Original message |
|
My rights are inherent, and not subject to the electorate's approval
|
rug
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 04:02 PM
Response to Original message |
48. Human rights are never local issues. |
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 04:06 PM
Response to Original message |
49. I see it as a human rights issue... |
|
I'd like to see it get back to square one and be talked about as such.
The fewer divisions we use to separate us all, the better for all concerned. These are human rights issues. Period.
|
Warren DeMontague
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-15-11 04:10 PM
Response to Original message |
53. Civil rights shouldn't be up for a vote, or subject to majority whim |
|
Edited on Thu Sep-15-11 04:10 PM by Warren DeMontague
so, no, a National issue. A human, everyone issue.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:54 PM
Response to Original message |