advertisement
advertisement
|
Friday, March 28, 2008
To the Editors: Re: “Obama pastor backs gay rights” (news, March 21)
In his speech earlier this month, Sen. Barack Obama navigated through turbulent issues of race and divisiveness in America. One of the speech’s principle aims was to distance the candidate from comments made by his reverend, Jeremiah Wright, that racism is endemic to white Americans.
Running on a platform of unity, Obama had no choice but to condemn Rev. Wright’s worldview and he countered it by proclaiming that America is no less than “hungry” for a “message of unity.” He walked through the frustrations of both blacks and whites with President Bush’s America, concluding that we have a common cause — a better tomorrow for all. Then he folded women into the mix, then the poor, then Asian Americans, Latinos and Native Americans. All these constituencies must look past strife, he commanded, and focus on bettering the country for all.
The speech was brave and artful because it acknowledged disparate and often inconsistent beliefs about race and the marginalized in America but brought them to a common point — the future. But despite my admiration for Obama’s oration, I was disappointed that the broad coalition that he built did not include or acknowledge the LGBT community.
I know the reason for this and we have all heard it before — supporting gays is counterproductive to getting a Democrat elected. It will give conservatives an issue on which to seize. A speech that merely referenced the LGBT community would have turned into a headline on how Obama supported the “gay agenda” and would have eclipsed his message on race. Nonetheless, after reading article after article and blog after blog lauding Obama for his message of broad inclusiveness, although gays were conspicuously left out, I could not help but feel that I belonged to a constituency that somehow did not count in American politics.
I would like to think that Obama’s sophisticated approach to addressing tricky issues of marginalization could have somehow extended to us but I am left to think that we are too far afield for any viable candidate to touch.
Los Angeles
Editors’ note: The writer is a former president of the Lesbian & Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles and a current member of Lambda Legal’s Leadership Committee in Los Angeles.
To the Editors: Re: “Remembering slain teen” (news, Feb. 29)
I remember walking through the Oklahoma City memorial, being filled with sadness at the lives lost and thinking about the families torn apart by the actions of one individual who sought to punish America for what he perceived to be our moral failing.
Similarly, whenever Fred Phelps and his collection of religious zealots interject their ignorance and hatred into what should be a time for families and friends to remember a loved one, to grieve and support each other in a dignified and private ceremony, it angers us all.
The world is filled with many other instances wherein religious beliefs are used to deny people life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whether it is denying women the right to vote, not permitting interracial couples to marry, making women subservient to their husbands and second-class citizens, cloaking women from head to toe in cloth, mutilating the sexual organs of women or any myriad of other examples, attempting to impose religious beliefs of one group to deny the rights of another, is wrong.
Where do we stop? Which religion or religious beliefs should we permit to negatively impact the rights we grant to all of our citizens. Should we return women to the kitchen and put them in subservient roles to men to comply with some people’s interpretation of the Bible? I don’t believe so. How then is it acceptable to use your religious beliefs to diminish other citizens?
Many people seek to impose their religious views on the world. Whose viewpoint should take precedence? The basic principles of our great country call for both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. To fail to abide and support both concepts puts everything we value, the core of our democracy, in serious jeopardy.
I hope to never have to attend another funeral for a gay or lesbian youth killed at the hands of intolerance and bigotry. Fifteen-year-old Lawrence King died because people hate. Hatred is facilitated by people who denigrate others and make them seem somehow less than human. The Nazis knew all too well how to take people who were different (i.e. Jews, homosexuals, disabled individuals, etc.) and convince the majority they were less than human. Once you dehumanize people, once you equate them as evil or lesser beings, the effort to kill them or inflict pain and suffering on them becomes easier and more acceptable.
When you teach hatred or intolerance, you become an accomplice to the crime. You are as guilty as the person pulling the trigger to kill the 15-year-old boy.
It is time for people to take ownership of their words. Think before you speak and consider the implications of what you say. Our elected officials hold a special place in our society and it is time to move beyond the politics of division and hatred so that we can unite to create a better society for all of our citizens.
Washington
|
