Sex
Yesterday's post was money; today it's sex.
There is a resport in today's news that Microsoft withdrew its historic support for a bill in the Washington State legislature that would prohibit discrimination against people because of their sexual preference. Microsoft has long been a supporter of gay rights, and some believe a fundamentalist church in Redmond, where Microsoft's headquarters is, pressured the company to change its position. The church's pastor seemed to confirm that when he said he warned Microsoft in a recent meeting that he was considering calling for a nationwide boycott of their products if they continued their support for gay rights. He said, "I decided we'd givem them a reason to be afraid of Christians."
Imagine. I am a Christian who is afraid of some who claim an exclusive to the title. And imagine a corproation with such power.
No wonder we are fighting a war against Islamist extremism. It is our shadow. How does that pastor's behavior differ from an Imam who warns infidels who vote in Iraq they may be killed? Only in degree.
I was caught flat footed by the uproar in the Episcopal Church over the ordination of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. He was hardly the first gay bishop, not even the first to be in a gay relationship. He was the first to be open and honest about it. I figured the issue was over. I was wrong.
In yesterday's NY Times David Brooks suggested that unless Roe Vs. Wade is overturned, there is no chance we will be able to return to civil political life in this country. Although I hope he is wrong, I see his point. That the Court's decision took the matter out of the hands of voters and legislatures where imprtant social issues can be debated. But the same could be said for civil rights. No legislature had the courage to change our racist habits until Brown Vs. Board of Education required change. Does Brooks think we should put abortion back in back alleys until people decide the matter? Or equal rights for people of color?
I hated the Supreme Court decision that made George W. Bush President in 2000. It was based on the flimsiest law and broke precedent that I fear will haunt us for decades. But I understood the Court's pragmatic sense that the matter had to be decided as best it could in the moment. Although one hopes the Court will make decisions based on the Constitution and precedent whenever possible, the reason we have a Supreme Court is to break the logjam caused when the country is divided and action is required.
Although there is little about the composition of the present Court to give us such hope, I still hope the justices will see that, unless they find a way to make diverse sexual identity and practice permissible in this country, we may be headed for something like what we deplore in much of the Islamist world.
There is a resport in today's news that Microsoft withdrew its historic support for a bill in the Washington State legislature that would prohibit discrimination against people because of their sexual preference. Microsoft has long been a supporter of gay rights, and some believe a fundamentalist church in Redmond, where Microsoft's headquarters is, pressured the company to change its position. The church's pastor seemed to confirm that when he said he warned Microsoft in a recent meeting that he was considering calling for a nationwide boycott of their products if they continued their support for gay rights. He said, "I decided we'd givem them a reason to be afraid of Christians."
Imagine. I am a Christian who is afraid of some who claim an exclusive to the title. And imagine a corproation with such power.
No wonder we are fighting a war against Islamist extremism. It is our shadow. How does that pastor's behavior differ from an Imam who warns infidels who vote in Iraq they may be killed? Only in degree.
I was caught flat footed by the uproar in the Episcopal Church over the ordination of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. He was hardly the first gay bishop, not even the first to be in a gay relationship. He was the first to be open and honest about it. I figured the issue was over. I was wrong.
In yesterday's NY Times David Brooks suggested that unless Roe Vs. Wade is overturned, there is no chance we will be able to return to civil political life in this country. Although I hope he is wrong, I see his point. That the Court's decision took the matter out of the hands of voters and legislatures where imprtant social issues can be debated. But the same could be said for civil rights. No legislature had the courage to change our racist habits until Brown Vs. Board of Education required change. Does Brooks think we should put abortion back in back alleys until people decide the matter? Or equal rights for people of color?
I hated the Supreme Court decision that made George W. Bush President in 2000. It was based on the flimsiest law and broke precedent that I fear will haunt us for decades. But I understood the Court's pragmatic sense that the matter had to be decided as best it could in the moment. Although one hopes the Court will make decisions based on the Constitution and precedent whenever possible, the reason we have a Supreme Court is to break the logjam caused when the country is divided and action is required.
Although there is little about the composition of the present Court to give us such hope, I still hope the justices will see that, unless they find a way to make diverse sexual identity and practice permissible in this country, we may be headed for something like what we deplore in much of the Islamist world.
posted by Blayney at 11:58 AM
2 Comments:
That's not about sex, it is about being human - OK - maybe it is about sex.
I am so tired of being "weird" because I am both "liberal" and christian (although some would put that in quotation marks). I frankly think that the current court is scared of what GWB would do if he had the chance to appoint a justice, much less the chief. I have to believe that a lack of trust in the system is what has kept Rhenquist on the court. I have heard persistent rumor in the legal community that there was a pact when Bush v. Gore was decided that no one would voluntarily leave the court while he was President so it would not seem that they somehow picked their own successors. I hope this is true.
Flat footed might be a good description for many of us - and especially the democratic party. We sit by and watch not really believing what is happening.
Fascinating perspective, Ian, that the justices are hanging on because they think Bush is a loose cannon likey to make a hair-brained choice to succeed them. Especially Rhenquist, though there must be some explanation for this man, seemingly a near corpse, refusing to resign.
Post a Comment
<< Home