News and Events => Opinions & Editorials => Topic started by: Shana A on November 13, 2008, 01:02:08 PM Return to Full Version
Title: Split: Strong Walls, Hurled Stones, Reconciliation?
Post by: Shana A on November 13, 2008, 01:02:08 PM
Post by: Shana A on November 13, 2008, 01:02:08 PM
Split: Strong Walls, Hurled Stones, Reconciliation?
Posted November 13, 2008
http://radnichole.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/split-strong-walls-hurled-stones-reconciliation/ (http://radnichole.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/split-strong-walls-hurled-stones-reconciliation/)
I'd sworn-off writing anymore of Proposition 8 and the resulting boycotts, press conferences, backing away, lashings of groups of people, job resignations, trans-homophobia, homo-homophobia, hetero-homophobia and assorted other all-too-human reactions to its passage. O, well, oaths are made to be broken when circumstances make the oath less -comfortable than it had seemed to be. (That should be a quip, but I imagine that most folks can understand it pretty well in terms of their own lives.)
That 52% of voting Californians decided it was acceptable to attempt to "referendum-away" a right granted painting-split1to a segmant of the population is simply silly. Why should I, or anyone else, get a vote on whether or not someone deserves a set of civil-protections and rights that others have? What kind of sanity prevails in that? My initial reaction is: none at all.
Posted November 13, 2008
http://radnichole.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/split-strong-walls-hurled-stones-reconciliation/ (http://radnichole.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/split-strong-walls-hurled-stones-reconciliation/)
I'd sworn-off writing anymore of Proposition 8 and the resulting boycotts, press conferences, backing away, lashings of groups of people, job resignations, trans-homophobia, homo-homophobia, hetero-homophobia and assorted other all-too-human reactions to its passage. O, well, oaths are made to be broken when circumstances make the oath less -comfortable than it had seemed to be. (That should be a quip, but I imagine that most folks can understand it pretty well in terms of their own lives.)
That 52% of voting Californians decided it was acceptable to attempt to "referendum-away" a right granted painting-split1to a segmant of the population is simply silly. Why should I, or anyone else, get a vote on whether or not someone deserves a set of civil-protections and rights that others have? What kind of sanity prevails in that? My initial reaction is: none at all.