Indiana Equality has moved to a new blog! The new blog is now with Typepad.com at http://indianaequality.typepad.com . Please change any links on your blog to reflect the new address.
Indiana Equality would greatly appreciate if you could pass along this information to as many people, websites, and blogs as possible.
If you have any questions at all please contact Indiana Equality Communications Chair, Brandon Monson at communications@indianaequality.org
3/26/2008
New blog!
To the Brave students of the Warsaw Community Schools
The following is an article from The Times Union in Warsaw, Indiana, but first are some comments I have for the brave students standing up for whats right in a climate that doesn't support them.
To the brave students throughout Indiana participating in GLSEN's Day of
Silence:
You are not supported by many. You will be told over and
over that you are wrong. You will be condemned. You may be ridiculed.
In the face of all the opposition that you will face, you can be
comforted with one thought, with one notion: you are doing what you know is
right and that is most noble. Many of us have made it through high school and
were not able or were not brave enough to stand up and stand out.
Thank you for your commitment to what is right. You are supported
by thousands across the state. There are those out there that believe in you.
Remember that you are not alone and that your actions are
appreciated.
Students, Parents Debate Merits Of 'Day Of Silence'
David SloneTimes-Union Staff Writer
"That's so gay."
"He looks like a homo."
"She looks like a dyke."
They're expressions that have become common in some American students' vocabulary. They even pop up in mainstream movies and music. But to a gay or lesbian student, they're demeaning words used to bully a person because of their sexual orientation or gender expression, according to Daryl Presgraves, media relations manager with Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network.On April 25, high school and college students across the country will speak out against bullying of gay or lesbian students simply by not speaking at all.
They may remain silent when called upon by a teacher. They may keep quiet when another student asks them a question. It's all part of the National Day of Silence.
Presgraves said students from 55 Indiana schools have registered to participate in the Day of Silence, including students from Warsaw Community High School. More students from other schools are expected as the date gets closer.
Schools do not sponsor the Day of Silence. Students take up the day on their own and it is student led, Presgraves said.
According to the GLSEN Web site, the National Day of Silence brings attention to anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. This year's event will be held in memory of Lawrence King, a California eighth-grader who was shot and killed Feb. 12 by a classmate because of his sexual orientation and gender expression.
American Family Association, a conservative group, encourages parents to keep their children out of school on that day. The association also encourages parents to speak to school officials in opposition to the Day of Silence.
The AFA Web site states, "If your school is listed, call your local school and ascertain whether they officially or passively allow students to observe 'Day of Silence.' If your school is listed, please double-check with your local school to see if the school is actually sponsoring DOS. ... We sincerely hope your school, if listed, is not actually an official sponsor. If it is not, we will take them off the list, if a school official asks us to do so."
The AFA Web site also offers tips to parents, telling them to inform the school of their intention to keep their child home on that date and explain why. The Web site tells parents to "Explain to your children why you're taking a stand: Homosexual behavior is not an innate identity; it is a sinful, unnatural and destructive behavior. No school should advance a physically, emotionally, and spiritually destructive sexual lifestyle to students."
As of Tuesday, the AFA listed WCHS as one of the participating schools.
Rich Franco, Leesburg, has two children at WCHS. "The concern is that they force the recognition of a given lifestyle on the student population without any regard to what the rest of the other students' beliefs are," he said.
Franco said students have the perception that the Day of Silence is sponsored by the school. He said there are more valuable things students could benefit from than the Day of Silence.
Warsaw Community Schools Superintendent Dr. Robert Haworth said they have requested AFA to take Warsaw off the list twice as of March 20. Haworth said the school corporation does not have a position on the Day of Silence. WCS is not sponsoring or promoting it, he said.
"With that being said, we are very aware of the diversity in our building and in our corporation. It is not our intent to infringe on the First Amendment right of freedom of speech of anyone unless they are disruptive, causing harm or putting a kid in danger," said Haworth.
Ken Falk, legal director for the Indiana American Civil Liberties Union, said Haworth seems to be on target. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that while students keep certain Constitutional rights while in the school building, expressive activity must not be disruptive. If it becomes disruptive, the school corporation can curb or restrict the behavior. For example, Falk said, a student can't stand up during class and protest the war because that would be disruptive.
Courts today, Falk said, are going to defer more to school administrators than to parents as to whether something is disruptive or not, up to a point.
Presgraves said GLSEN encourages students interested in participating in the Day of Silence to talk to the school administration in advance to make the day as much of a positive experience as possible. If the administration supports the students, but prefers the students speak in class, then Presgraves said the students can be silent during lunch and other breaks. The day is "not set in stone."
Schools don't often know how to address bullying of gay or lesbian students, Presgraves said, which is why students often hear expressions like "that's so gay" in the hallways.
And on the Day of Silence, Presgraves said, some students don't know how to react so their bigotry comes out. Participating students - gay or otherwise - are sometimes harassed.
"What does that say about the harassment gay and lesbian students feel every day?" Presgraves asked. "A lot of students participating are straight and know this is a problem," he added.
But some parents said school is not the appropriate place for the silent protest.
Gina Keener, Leesburg, has two sons and a niece who attend WCHS.
"My concern is for the safety of the children," Keener said.
Last year when the Day of Silence was first held at the high school, students were less than kind to the participating students. They knocked marker boards out of the students' hands that the silent students used to communicate, she said.
Haworth said he doesn't believe any incidents or disruptions were reported to the office on the Day of Silence.
Keener said she wants everyone to be respected, but doesn't believe school is the place for the event.
"We feel it's just not the place to have this," Keener said.
"I don't think you go to school to be gay or to be straight," you are there to learn math and science, she said.
"If they're going to be gay, that's their choice. Why make a day out of it?"
She also worried about the event creating a potential backlash.
"They try to make it better, but they are only making it worse," Keener said.
Presgraves said disruptions do not come from the students participating, but from people who misrepresent what the day is about.
"If you're against the day of silence, then you're for the bullying and harassment," said Presgraves.
The Day of Silence, he said, is not about changing people's beliefs. It is about changing people's behavior toward others. It is an anti-bullying program.
Keener said last year, students at Warsaw wanted to wear shirts that said they were "proud to be straight," but were not allowed to wear shirts by the administration.
Haworth said he is not aware of any incident involving shirts or students wanting to wear "pro-straight" shirts last year. But, he said, students opposed to the Day of Silence could have a day of their own to protest.
Falk said that would make perfect sense for both sides.
Haworth said WCHS has five Bible study groups that meet in the building. That is a committment and a choice the students have made. He said just as he would not infringe on the Bible study groups' First Amendment rights, he also wouldn't interfere with the rights of other organizations that don't disrupt or cause harm to students.
Keener said her children will not go to school April 25, even if it is an unexcused absence.
"What's the point?" Keener said. "All kinds of stuff will be going on. It's a total disruption of the school day."
Haworth said that is a choice for parents to make. Schools - unfortunately or fortunately - he said, have to deal with various social issues, including the Day of Silence, whether someone agrees with it or not.
The school corporation, however, is not sponsoring or promoting the Day of Silence.
Haworth said legal counsel through the Indiana School Board Assocation has told the school "not to interfere with the rights of students who are not being a disruption in the classroom, in the building or on the grounds."
On the Net:
American Family Association
http://www.afa.net/
Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network
www.glsenorg
Indiana American Civil Liberties Union
http://www.aclu-in.org/
Warsaw Community Schools
http://www.warsaw.k12.in.us/
Majority In Vt. Support Changing Civil Unions To Marriage
Majority In Vt. Support Changing Civil Unions To Marriage
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: March 26, 2008 - 2:00 pm ET
(Montpelier, Vermont) As a state commission prepares its report on whether to amend Vermont's civil union law to allow for same-sex marriage a new poll finds that the majority of people in the state believe gay and lesbian couples should have the right to marry.
The survey was taken of people attending town meetings across the state. It found that 54-percent said they support allowing gay couples to marry while 37-percent were opposed.
Vermont holds town hall meetings annually to conduct local business. Each March people going into the meetings are polled by state Sen. William Doyle, a Johnson State College political science professor, on issues affecting Vermonters.
Support this year for same-sex marriage showed an increase of eight-percent over 2007.
The commission studying same-sex marriage will present its report to the legislature next month. Members have been close-lipped on what they will recommend.
The commission was set up last year to look into Vermont's civil unions law to see if it is providing equality for gay and lesbian couples and to determine if the law should be amended to provide for same-sex marriage.
It is chaired by former state Rep. Tom Little (D). When he was a member of the legislature Little was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, when it passed the law legalizing civil unions in 2000.
At hearings throughout the state commissioners were told that while the state's civil union law - the first of its kind in the nation - was a step forward same-sex couples still are not equal.
Although the committee will present its report to the legislature in April nothing is expected to be done about it until after the election. That would mean that if the committee recommends gay marriage legislation there is no likelihood of a bill before 2009.
©365Gay.com 2008
3/24/2008
Almost as desperate as parking two semis in front of the Indiana Statehouse...
Group Behind Ban On Gay Adoptions Begs For Cash
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: March 24, 2008 - 5:00 pm ET
(Little Rock, Arkansas) An umbrella group of social conservatives trying to gather enough signatures to force a referendum that could ban couples who are not married from adopting children in Arkansas has launched a desperate appeal for money.
The Family Council Action Committee has sent out an email to supporters urging them to send what they can.
"If there was any doubt about our opposition making a fight of this, we know now that they will," wrote committee president Jerry Cox in the email obtained by Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. "They’re already building a war chest to oppose us," Cox wrote.
The measure would prevent a child from being adopted or placed in a foster home "if the individual seeking to adopt or to serve as a foster parent is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage which is valid under the constitution and laws of this state."
The Council must collect nearly 92,000 signatures by July to put the measure on the ballot. Cox said he expects to submit more than 100,000 names.
Cox said the money is needed to hire professionals to gather signatures.
The organization formed to defeat the measure, Arkansas Families First, has raised more money in the past month than the Family Council has since July the Democrat-Gazette reports.
According to figures obtained by the paper Families First raised almost $ 32,000 in February alone, while the Family Council in seven months received only about $22,000 in total.
Cox in his email said opponents of the measure are part of the so-called gay agenda - something Families First denies, pointing out the ban would also include unmarried opposite-sex couples.
The organization's supporters include such mainstream groups as the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, the Interfaith Council, the Arkansas Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatricians. the Arkansas Psychological Association and the Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Coalition is the same organization that was largely responsible for the passage of an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution banning gay marriage in 2004.
It began preparations for the adoption measure after a bill died in the Legislature that would have barred gays from adopting or fostering.
The bill was introduced following a state Supreme Court ruling last year.
Arkansas’s Child Welfare Agency Review Board had established a policy in 1999 that banned gay people from serving as foster parents, and the Arkansas Supreme Court struck it down after a seven-year legal battle between the state and the ACLU.
Several state and national child welfare groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs urging the court to strike down the exclusion because it worked against the best interests of foster children.
In its unanimous ruling, the court said testimony in the state's appeal demonstrated that "the driving force behind adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board's views of morality and its bias against homosexuals."
Arkansas may have changed since the marriage amendment was accepted by voters in 2004.
A public opinion poll taken last October found voters divided on gay adoption.
The poll, conducted by University of Arkansas, found that 53 percent of prospective voters would approve the ban, while 42 percent would reject it. Five percent of those questioned either had no opinion or refused to answer.
The survey had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.
©365Gay.com 2008
Foul Play
The following is a contribution from Sheila Kennedy
By the time this column hits newsstands, readers will have heard more than most of them ever wanted to hear about Barack Obama’s pastor, Jeremy Wright. So I apologize in advance for belaboring the subject, but I remain steamed.
Why, you may ask, is a white Jewish grandmother (a demographic to which Hillary considers herself entitled) brooding over the coverage of an African-American Christian pastor? I’ll tell you: because I come from a tradition that is all about Justice. On matters of faith, any three Jews will hold at least five different beliefs; we’ll argue into the wee hours about politics, public policy and whether nice Jewish boys should attend medical school or law school. But most of us imbibed the Talmudic injunction “Justice, justice shalt thou pursue” with our mothers’ milk. And the brouhaha over Reverend Wright has been unjust on so many levels.
First—and most obvious—is the highly selective nature of the clips being shown endlessly on cable television. As many columnists and reporters have pointed out (notably, Anderson Cooper on his own blog), all of the Reverend’s hundreds of sermons are digitally available. Very few of them contained inflammatory passages. Indeed, even the statements that have aroused so much anger don’t sound nearly so incendiary when shown in context, as part of the larger message. (I shudder to think how I would sound—not being the most temperate person around—if someone selected the least reasonable statements I had made and presented them as representative.)
Second, there are the pious statements from people who were shocked, shocked, that Obama didn’t leave his church. How could he stay if he really disagreed with portions of his pastor’s sermons. Oh, yeah—as a Catholic friend of mine wondered aloud, how many of those people are Catholics who left the Church over the predatory priest scandals? As a student of mine remarked, “I’m a conservative Christian. I don’t agree with everything Pat Robertson says. But I agree with a lot, and I don’t stop being a Conservative Baptist just because there’s stuff I disagree with.”
Third—and perhaps most telling—where is all the righteous indignation about the homophobes and anti-Semites whose endorsement John McCain has actively sought? Whatever the Reverend Wright’s positions on responsibility for 9-11 or AIDS in the African-American community, he has, according to the Washington Blade, “largely supported gay rights and welcomed gays into his 8,000-member congregation.” According to Equality Illinois, “Trinity [Wright’s congregation] has been among the strongest supporters of LGBT rights.” The church has a gay and lesbian singles ministry, and Wright has spoken up in defense of gay pastors.
Contrast that with pronouncements by Televangelist John Hagee, the virulently anti-gay, anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic Religious Right figure whose endorsement was actively sought and publicly welcomed by John McCain. (Hagee calls the Catholic Church “the great whore.”) Or with McCain’s acceptance of support from radical right leader Janet Folger, who—among other charming sentiments—has declared that “Anita Bryant was right.” Or the Reverend Ron Parsley, who McCain calls his “personal spiritual advisor.” According to People for the American Way, “You won’t hear Parsley rail against Catholics, but you will hear him rail against gays, abortion, Islam, judges, and People for the American Way.” In Ohio, Parsley has built a political machine of “Patriot Pastors” who turn their churches into get-out-the-vote campaigns during elections—undoubtedly the “spiritual” element that most appeals to Mr. McCain.
If we are going to obsess endlessly over Rev. Wright’s less elevated pronouncements, we might expect the media to give equal time to the considerably more florid and consistent positions of these “spiritual advisors.” If you have somehow failed to notice prominent reporting about the positions taken by Mr. McCain’s spiritual gurus, however, you aren’t alone—The Carpetbagger Report ran a Lexis-Nexis search to see just how many stand-alone articles were written about “McCain’s outreach to a bigoted and nutty televangelist” in the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. The total? Zero.
Will this focus on handpicked passages from Reverend Wright’s sermons sink Barack Obama? The answer is no. If Barack Obama loses, Reverend Wright may be the excuse; he won’t be the reason.
Obama has frequently said that this election is a choice between the past and the future. The use of Reverend Wright’s sermons to stir up racial resentments is consistent with the politics of the past. It remains to be seen whether Americans will vote for a different, fairer future.
3/20/2008
Writing SJR7’s Epitaph – and looking over my shoulder
By Don Sherfick
"Marley was dead - to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of his burial was signed by the clergyman, the clerk, the undertaker, and the chief mourner...Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail."
So begins Charles Dickens’ immortal “A Christmas Carol”.
And so it is also, despite some earlier differences over what constituted full cessation of its vital signs, that the proposed constitutional calamity known variously as SJR7, “The Indiana Marriage Protection Amendment”, “The Indiana Marriage Discrimination Amendment”, and often stronger and less family-friendly epithets, passed into its eternal reward (or punishment) as Speaker Pat Bauer’s final gavel fell last Friday in the Indiana House of Representatives.
Waiting for assurances that this moment would finally come, I had sketched out a number of draft obituaries of my own, ready to add some eagerly anticipated post-mortem observations. Funny, though……as I watched the “short session” of the Indiana Legislature come to a close on its streaming video site, I found myself feeling something different from the flash of exuberant glee I though I would experience.
Was I pleased that it would now be at least November 2012 until any similar measure might find its way onto a general election ballot for ratification? Yes. Did I take a great deal of satisfaction that efforts to focus the attention of the general public, the media, and our lawmakers on the amendment’s poor drafting and the negative/unintended consequences associated with it had paid off? Absolutely.
Still, I recalled the line out of a well-know 1980’s song by the Fifth Dimension: “One less man to pick up after….I should be happy, but all I do is cry”, came to mind. Why?
Probably because, just as Dickens’ Ebenezer Scrooge was about to be re-visited by Jacob’s ghost, and then visited by ghosts from past, present, and future, I knew deep down that although SJR7 as such was dead, the issue it represented isn’t. We shall pass this way again.
So instead of writing an obituary, I will relax a bit, savor what finally has to be the coming of warm spring days, and then begin to think and help plan for what’s ahead: How our opponents will try and twist SJR7’s demise to brand some of our legislative friends and supporters as being anti-marriage and anti-family. What form a renewed attempt to amend the very Bill of Rights of the Indiana Constitution next January or later might take. How our lawmakers will react, with a session primarily occupied with resolving property tax matters now behind them.
The looming Presidential election, as well as other contests, the state of the economy, and numerous other matters, both in our collective and personal lives, will monopolize any spotlight that may have played upon SJR7 in the period just ended. The stage may indeed be empty for a little while.
But not for long. The ticket office will again open, the audiences will take their seats, the stage crew and actors will take their places all soon enough. We need to remain and engaged. We need to continue to educate ourselves and our families and friends, both within and outside of our LGBT community, about the many inequalities that exist between the rights and benefits married couples enjoy that our own loving and committed couples do not. The more those of us who are in such relationships are visible, and the more Hoosiers see how these legal differences affect our daily lives, the more quickly and completely they and their lawmakers will see that enshrining this kind of discrimination into our Constitution is wrong.
The marriage debate, like Marley’s ghost, is going to be part of the landscape for quite a while. Ultimately someone will be able to write a lasting obituary. While I’d like someday to be that someone, I’ve got a few more productive things to do at the moment. We all do.
3/19/2008
The Movement's Future Middle Age?
After watching Barak Obama’s speech yesterday, I was talking with some friends that I had made at a conference downtown, and the subject turned to the issue of race in
Now, the second part of that question assumes that we will eventually win legal equality. But, based on the assumption that we do win legal equality, how will the world look for us? We’ll have the same partnerships as our heterosexual counterparts, the same legal protections against discrimination, and we’ll be able to adopt. We will have the whole multitude of issues that currently dominate our corner of the blogosphere and that currently dominate our conversations at the Statehouse. So, what then?
So many of our arguments make the point that we just want to have the same rights as anyone else, that, upon arriving in the land of legal equality, we might be a little dazed for a while. Delirious, even. But we’ll undoubtedly have obstacles left. Intolerance of our community will likely persist long afterwards, much like racism today. But open intolerance in religion might be confined to “religions” that will seem as wacko as the
Of course, who knows what could happen? It’s not particularly productive to speculate about a post-legal equality LGBT community at the moment, but it raises some interesting questions about the future. Of course, even if that legal equality is achieved, there will always be wing-nut factions to fend off from both inside and outside the community. More importantly, there will still be the fights against narrow-mindedness, prejudice, and unfair stereotypes. So while we keep racking up the legislative successes like this session’s defeat of SJR-7, let’s not forget about taking care of the underlying issues that cause this fight. We still have a lot to do.
3/18/2008
Grow up Ryan. No one is buying it.
I read the Indiana Family Institute’s Ryann McCann hypocrisy and I try not to laugh too hard—its getting easier to do after seeing him testify at so many different House and Senate committee hearings.
In his most recent blog post goes on and on about how apparently Democrats here in Indiana don’t ever “throw a bone” to the Republican Party here in Indiana even when:
The Republican Party reaches out to social liberals. Republican
elected officials walk in gay pride parades, the Republican Party practically
begs gay activists to join up with them anymore. The “Grand Old Party” has
even been known to play nice with pro-choice groups and others on
occasions. Yet the Democrats won’t even throw social conservatives a
bone. Why? I know there are lots of Reagan Democrats out there who
are sick of seeing Christians treated like second class citizens, sick of seeing
Hoosier babies being killed before they can take their first breath and sick of
seeing the homosexual lifestyle promoted by government.
Reach out Democrats…you might be surprised what you get. Let’s
try to look past the “mischief” of party politics and work on creating a better
Indiana. However, even if all you care about is achieving political power,
wouldn’t it still make sense to reach out? Rise up, Democrats. Rise
up.
Are you serious? Notice that McCann says “Republican elected officials walk in gay pride parades”, there is no “s” at the end of Republican—meaning that there is ONE Republican that would walk in a pride parade. You’re using that as a serious argument? Doesn’t say much for your precious party McCann.
It gets better: “the Republican Party practically begs gay activists to join up with them anymore”. What? Does poor ol Ryan live in Indiana? Does he remember what party, voting among party lines, pushed SJR-7 forward in the Indiana Senate? I am seriously at a complete loss as to how that even makes sense.
And finally McCann has to rub in a little salt with “and sick of seeing the homosexual lifestyle promoted by government.” Oh he just couldn’t resist could he? He had referenced LGBT peoples earlier in the paragraph as “gay” (somewhat progressive for someone who works so closely with Eric Miller) and then he ends that very paragraph with those damn “homosexual[s]” and their “lifestyle”.
Grow up Ryan. No one is buying it.
3/16/2008
Winners and Losers
This post comes from Indiana Barrister, note the blue bolded text below.
SOME WILL WIN, SOME WILL LOSE, SOME ARE BORN TO SING THE BLUES
Okay, okay, enough with the Journey references already! But I couldn’t help myself. Let’s face it, it’s not everyday you get your hands around the biggest property tax reform package in darn near 50 years. So while my last post was who gets the credit, with this post we do another survey, who wins and who loses under this plan, politically speaking. Here is my list…
Winners (At Least for Now Anyway)
Governor Mitch Daniels - It was his plan. He got the Legislature to go along with most of it. His re-election effort just go a lot easier.
Sen. Luke Kenley - If Daniels was the architect, Kenley was the builder. That guy is brilliant.
House Speaker Pat Bauer - The Speaker is nothing if not one of the smartest politicos I have ever met in this state. He saw what was coming and made sure his members would be safe. By the way, sources close to the House Democrat leadership team say they knew they were going to vote for the proposal days before it passed, knowing there was no way this session could go by without real tax reform.
Senate Pro Temp David Long & House Republican Leader Brian Bosma - Not bad guys. And a little 11th hour posturing with a joint news conference didn’t hurt either. But you know what, it worked. Don’t hate the players folks, hate the game.
Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard - With the state assuming the burden of a number of levies (including the pre-1977 police pensions that his critics called him an idiot for asking for even though they now says it’s a good thing for all of Indiana) the city will save an estimated $65 million. That seems pretty darn close to the $70 million the Mayor promised to cut. See, timing is everything in politics.
Anyone running for re-election - Any lawmaker who is running for re-election and who voted for this reform plan is basically a shoe-in. If you know the perfect campaign counter strategy, let me know.
Losers (Or better luck next year)
Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Jim Schellinger - Schellinger is a smart guy, but to put out a news release to say the state needs to wait until next year for tax reform is the equivalent of handing Daniels a victory on a silver platter with a square plate and garnish on the side.
Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Jill Long Thompson - By passing tax reform, lawmakers took this issue away from the Democratic candidate and so now she’s going to have to find something else to run on. By they way, Speaker Bauer told us Friday he would have no problem pointing out errors in the criticism of the plan by either Thompson or Schellinger.
State Sen. Mike Delph - Delph tried to push an illegal immigration plan through that had more constitutional issues than the play 1776. And then the fight got personal towards the end and from what I hear almost came to blows in a Senate caucus. My suggestion, pass a law that says if the federal government finds an employer has hired illegal immigrants, then the state can step in and take the business’ license away. You’ll find you avoid a lot more grief that way.
SJR-7 Supporters - Like I tell my friends who are Chicago Cub fans, sorry guys, this wasn’t your year. Better luck next season when voters aren’t as concerned about losing their homes as opposed to who’s living next door to them.
Indiana Sheriffs - Now that lawmakers have made their pay equal to that of the County Prosecutors’ they can no longer make as much, or more, than the President of the United States.
Indiana Township Assessors -It’s been real and it’s been fun. Next time it will be real fun. Although they may be all out of a job soon, they may still get the last laugh out the door when the final reassessment numbers come back. That issue ain’t over by a longshot.
Kernan-Shepard Commission Supporters - Wait ’til next year.
Singing the Blues
Local governments - They’ve argued they’re going to lose a ton of money under this plan with the property tax caps, however they forget to mention the local option income tax which can be used to replace that revenue and the state is picking up levies that they have been clamoring for for years. So we’ll see.
Radio Talk Show Hosts, Pundits and Bloggers - Our livelihoods are centered around controversy and now the biggest issue of the last 25 years has been taken off the table in a bi-partisan fashion. Oh well, another issue will pop up soon because as the song goes, “the movie never ends, it goes on and on and on.”
Posted: 031608 at 9:16 am by Abdul Hakim-ShabazzFollow this entry via RSS 2.0. Comment Trackback
3/14/2008
What We're Up Against
It may not be the happiest of topics, but I think it's important to understand our opponents in the fight for equality. We are up against human beings, first and foremost. Human beings who are just as convinced of their worldview as we are of ours. The problem is, almost always, a conservative view of a religious text.
What follows is a quote which aids understanding of the conservative religious mindset through the lens of racial equality:
"Let's keep in mind that we are talking about efforts to desegregate America's schools and other public institutions. This should have been viewed as a question of basic justice: black Americans were denied justice, equality, and freedom on the basis of nothing more than racial bigotry by whites. Many of these whites sought to defend and justify their racism, their bigotry, and their institutional discrimination on the basis of their religious texts.
"Few if any were just cynically manipulating the Bible in the service of racist political goals. We should accept them as completely sincere in their beliefs, which probably only makes things worse. The fact that blacks were being denied justice and equality was, in their minds, less important than the fact that giving them justice and equality would have undermined long-established social structures. They believed that the subjugation of blacks by whites was designed by God as the desirable social order in America — that God was in effect a racist just like them. (From the book Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery by Stephen R. Haynes)"
What's the answer? I'm not sure. I do know that we need to remember that we're up against people, and that we would do well to treat our enemies as such so as not to commit the same sins.
-- Rev. Andy Burnette
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
