Arkansas Blog

Judge Villines should take to heart the fact that 62,588 citizens voted AGAINST his re-election!

>>One question to ponder: Would he have won without the market collapse?<<

This may be THE question of the next few years. This morning the conservative pundits are blaming all the losses on the market collapse. One said he was "highly offended" when Peter Hart said the results of this election were a repudiation of the politics of fear.

I honestly don't know the answer to the question and suspect it was a combination. I do believe that many people - even some evangelicals - had become disenchanted with the divisiveness of GWB. I was informed by my bro-in-law from Texas in July, that he was prepared to vote for Hillary this year because he had to admit that GWB's brand of politics had been bad for the country, but he refused to vote for Obama because of Rev Wright, and all the other questions about his background, but MOSTLY because he was an unknown quantity.

I wonder if the election would have been a real blow-out had our candidate been someone with more experience, but then again, maybe the message of change and the post-racial nature of the Obama campaign would have been enough. We will never know for sure I suspect because the collapse did happen and those who don't want to accept either the huge errors of the right OR the slim qualifications of Obama will always believe they have it right.

All I know this morning is that I am a very happy woman that we don't have to deal with McCain/Palin. I'm happy that people all over the globe can take a second look at the USA and realize that there has always been a large segment of the population that wasn't of the mold of GWB and Delay and we hated that they were elected and re-elected again and again. I'm happy that we will have this brilliant young black man to represent us around the world and to give thoughtful consideration to what needs to be done to correct the mistakes of the past.

Yep, I'm a very happy lady this morning - wiser about the flaws of my own party - but happy none the less. It's a good day!!!!

"I think the core message of the measure, regardless of the impact on children, reached voters. Discomfort with gay people, if not outright homophobia, remains a powerful factor in Arkansas political life."

I'm not sure precisely where the line falls between outright homophobia and discomfort. It seems a pedantic distinction to those of us placed beyond the line, regardless.

As long as Arkansas remains a place where the ilk of chasv talk Christianity while issuing ugly taunts to gay citizens to leave and not let the door hit us in the arse as we leave, not much is going to change. For the better.

Or, more accurately, as long as the majority of Arkansas's citizens don't realize that these attitudes and this form of discrimination negatively affect everyone, not much will change for the better.

As long as we are a state that prefers the chasv type over the gay couple now leaving because the hate is too much, we will remain stuck where we are--uneducated, economically deprived, incestuous, controlled by a tiny elite of wealthy people whose main interest is not the welfare of the state where they made their money, but their self-interest.

The posting by a gay couple now choosing to leave the state sketches a dynamic that has been studied in many places. It's not just a dynamic of exodus--of good and bright folks. It's a dynamic of refusal of good and bright people even to move to a place in which discrimination and disdain are so overt and so toxic.

Another question to ponder: Would Obama have won without Sarah Palin? I think he still would have won, but if the powers that be had chosen an intelligent and coherent running mate for McCain it would have been a much closer.

"Discomfort with gay people, if not outright homophobia, remains a powerful factor in Arkansas political life."

And in California and throughout America. Let's hear it for Pulaski, Searcy, and Washington counties on Initiated Act 1.

Amen, Durango. I believe we will regret all three amendments and the initiated act passage before long.

One question to ponder: Would he have won without the market collapse?-Max
********
A second question would be: Would he have won without being black?

Unless I mis-heard the statistic last night, the pollster said that Obama received 95% of the black vote. If he ran with the identical credentials as a white candidate, would he have been elected?

That being said, if I were black, and a black presidential candidate was on the ballot, I am confident I too would have voted for him unless he was even more extreme than Calypso Louie Farrakhan. So I don't begrudge the racist element of the voting.

If America is to change its image, it needs to lurch strongly in a different direction. That "change" would not be evident if McCain was elected. This election should now provide a clear message that we are making that lurch. Hopefully, this will work out for the best.

If a dramatic statement was needed, a dramatic statement was made.

This could be a very exciting time.

It was a bitter-sweet feeling for me this morning. I am happy Obama won, but am sorely depressed about how my state voted, especially on the foster care/adoption issue. What REALLY burns my hide is the people like Chasv have stepped on MY rights too. In passing this, Chasv and his ilk have told me I am unable to decide who can or cannot raise my son should something happen to me and my wife. That really chaffes me. In fighting the "gay cooties" ('cause we all know it's contageious *HEAVY SARCASM*) the Christian Right has effectively told me my opinion doesn't count and I am not fit to decide things for my son. Bullocks! Someone please sue and challenge these asshats!

"What REALLY burns my hide is the people like Chasv have stepped on MY rights too. In passing this, Chasv and his ilk have told me I am unable to decide who can or cannot raise my son should something happen to me and my wife."

Hillibilly, you're right. What really sets this initiative apart from those in CA and FL is that it directly affects the rights of both gay and straight citizens of Arkansas. A lot of commentary on websites all over the place is centering today on how the Arkansas vote for initiated act 1 is an especially, well, stupid cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face vote.

It can and should be argued that denying gay citizens the right of marriage also affects straight citizens, since no one's rights are safe as long as we permit rights to be denied to everyone.

But in the case of what we've just decided in AR, you have what one can only assume are a large majority of straight people willingly voting to forfeit their own rights if in the process they can bash a gay citizen.

That's just stupid. It's mean. And it all too easily plays into the stereotypes about Arkansas held by people in other parts of the country. Until all Arkansas citizens see that we have something vested, together, in overcoming ignorance, fear, and hatred around these issues, we'll remain a miasmic swamp.

Gay... it's the new Black...

my excitement is severely tempered this morning by the results of initiated act 1 and annual legislative sessions. the first is just sickening and the second infuriating. at least we still have term limits!

In passing this, Chasv and his ilk have told me I am unable to decide who can or cannot raise my son should something happen to me and my wife. . . the Christian Right has effectively told me my opinion doesn't count and I am not fit to decide things for my son. -Posted by: Arkansas Hillbilly
********
Hillbilly:
The way I read the act, you can still nominate the person of your choice to be the guardian for your son.

So, your opinion still counts - just be responsible and make sure you have a document (will, power of attorney, etc.) expressing your desires for an individual to serve as guardian.

A couple of things to ponder:

Were blacks racists when we went for Bill Clinton in 90% plus numbers?

Were we racists when we declined to support Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Carole Moseley Brown by anything like those numbers in Democratic primaries over the years (not to mention Alan Keyes in Republican primaries)?

Were women sexist if they were enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton in part because she personified the noble idea that merit can, finally, transcend gender in American political life?

Or does "racism" and "sexism" truly apply when voters exclude, or rule out, otherwise qualified candidates because of race or gender?

It seems clear that Sen. Obama's race helped in new registrations and in turnout among black voters, but I'll bet he did only slightly better than about what you'd expect for *any* Democratic candidate among those of us who have voted in the last three or four presidential elections.

It can and should be argued that denying gay citizens the right of marriage also affects straight citizens, since no one's rights are safe as long as we permit rights to be denied to everyone.-Posted by: MuddlingThrough
********
Muddling:
If I were you, I would instead argue for civil unions that bestow essentially the same property, inheritance and social (healthcare) rights as marriage.

Most "traditional folks" can probably be drug along this path if you quit calling it the legal and sacred term "marriage" which is available to any man and woman, together, whether they are gay or heterosexual. (I recognize the disconnect this creates regarding promotion of sexual fidelity in marriage).

That way, at least all inheritance, property and healthcare rights can be accommodated on an equal basis with the exception of adoption and foster care.

This is not a complete solution, but if this is a burning issue for you, you have to decide whether, at this time in our society, some progress is better than no progress.

I was elated that Obama won. I am crushed that initiated act 1 passed. My heart aches for the thousands of couples in CA that have been classified again as second and third class people. I never expected the people of Arkansas to be so mean. They should now step up and make themselves available for foster children in this state. They should come forward and provide for the children they have said no to. They think they know better about what homes these children need, they should provide.

Thanks for the advice, Don Keyhotay.

But if it were your rights at stake, would you want "essentially the same"?

Or would you want the same?

"Separate but equal" is not equal, it's discrimination.

"Until all Arkansas citizens see that we have something vested, together, in overcoming ignorance, fear, and hatred around these issues, we'll remain a miasmic swamp."

The day will never come, MuddlingThrough, when "all" in Arkansas (or anywhere else) will have overcome their ignorance and fear. But a "majority" is certainly an attainable goal. And we Arkies are approaching it. It's encouraging (to me, at least) that with 95% of the vote now in, 434,344 Arkansans (43%) have voted against Initiated Act 1. That's a significant number (very much so) given the energy Southern Baptists and others expended in their fight FOR the Act.

"If I were you, I would instead argue for civil unions that bestow essentially the same property, inheritance and social (healthcare) rights as marriage." Don Keyhotay.

That's what struck down the marriage ban in Conneticut. The State Supreme Court there decided that "separate but equal" was far from the case in thier decision. It actually put the "Defense of Marriage" folks on the defensive. The Civil Unions were civil, while marriages were concidered "sacred institutions" and therefore not equal. Just like with segregation in the 60's, the notion of "separeat but equal" was disproven yet again.

The simple fact remains, we CANNOT discriminate if we wish to be known as the land of the free, whether it is because of skin color, sexual orientation, sex, religion or nationality. If the election of Obama means anything, it is that we are bringing EVERYONE out of the margins. "We hold these truths to be self evident that ALL men are created equal". Jefferson was onto something there.

To add to Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., I have a dream, "...where all of God's children, black man and white man, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics" Gays and Straights,'will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old negro spiritual 'Free at last, free at last! Thank God Almighty, we're free at last!" That's my dream.

G, thanks: that was the precise point I was going for.

Whenever people start parsing rights--"essentially equal," "separate but equal"--you can be sure a shell game is going on. Rights are rights are rights. They're either there and absolute, or they are not there at all.

I have the feeling that Don Keyhotay grew up in AR at later date than I did. I remember all too well the days of "separate but equal" schools and so forth for black citizens. Because both sides of my family had quite a few teachers, I actually saw some of the "separate but equal" schools.

And I noticed that they were, how shall I put the point, anything BUT equal. Those broken down desks in white schools; the tattered and scribbled over books that were out of date: know where they went? Not to other "equal" white schools. To the "separate but equal" black schools.

Though I understand your point about being strategic, durangokid, I emphasize "all" because rights are either there and absolute, or they are not there at all. The reason the constitution guarantees our rights WITHOUT popular vote is to assure that all citizens recognize a social contract in which being human means having human rights.

ALL human rights. Period.

I would also note that unless we all realize that diminishing the rights of anyone threatens the rights of everyone, anyone's rights are susceptible to being taken away. Why some citizens would not find threats to their own rights a "burning issue" is beyond me, unless they assume that they should always have power and privilege from which others are excluded for accidental traits like gender, skin color, or sexual orientation.

Dammit, Arkansas Hillbilly you just made me cry a little. Thank you.

But if it were your rights at stake, would you want "essentially the same"? Or would you want the same? + I have the feeling that Don Keyhotay grew up in AR at later date than I did.-Posted by: MuddlingThrough

"Separate but equal" is not equal, it's discrimination.-Posted by: G
********
Don't mistake my position. I'm against gay marriage but I am trying to accommodate a middle ground - I am for equal rights - and the law says a marriage can consist of one adult MAN and one adult WOMAN, regardless of race, creed or color.

THEREFORE MARRIAGES ARE AVAILABLE EQUALLY TO ALL PEOPLE.

If you want the same rights without being married, call it a civil union and I think you will get it. The only difference is the inability to adopt or foster parent - because you, as a couple, are NOT the same as a married man and woman. Is there any other difference that I am missing?

Claiming a civil union is the equivalent of the broken down schools and separate junky drinking fountains that blacks were left with in the separate but equal 50's (which I do in fact remember, Junior) is an insult to the kids that grew up and survived that joke of "equality" that they were forced to endure.

You make your own decision - its your choice whether you want the additional rights that are achievable right now with a civil union - and keep working for the that last "right" you think you are entitled to - or decide that you will forfeit access to all of those rights because of the one that you can't get.

Your choice.

You know, Don, when I read some of your postings, and look at the ingenious little traps you create through your twisting of logic and good sense, I sometimes feel it's not worth responding to you.

Because playing games when people's sense of self-worth is at stake is such a waste of time.

But then, when I think about the self-righteous fury and the smug superiority that inhabits those tight little traps full of twisted logic, I think it may just be worth responding.

For two reasons. First, I refuse to allow you and your kind of Christian to define what is far too sacred to me to let you twist love into hate and good into evil without a fight. You are not only on the wrong side of history with your self-righteous fury, but you're also on the wrong side of the scriptures you claim to own exclusively.

Second, I have to admit I am a bit curious to see when and how karma will find its way--its inevitable way--to your door and you'll have to take a gander at yourself in the mirror, stripped of the self-righteous fury and smug superiority.

It really is your choice. That's how and why karma finds its way to our door--when we make choices that cause pain to others and then try to wrap those charges up in holy wrappers.

Don,

Four years ago I was where you are at, looking for the middle ground. I believed as you do now that civil unions would be "just as good" and that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's why I voted against that asshat ammendment last cycle. But what got me to thinking, I mean REALLY thinking, was meeting gay and lesbian couples, hearing their stories, and realizing that they really weren't any different from me. And here I was saying, "Even though you two love eachother, you can't have a marriage, but here is something 'essentially the same'". While trying to find that middle road, I was still marginalizing and separating my LGBT brothers and sisters from myself, still discriminating.

An Episcopal priest friend of mine put it best when he said that part of the problem we have with LGBT' s(that's Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual &Transgendered) is the "ick" factor. We see homosexuality as something that is different, an abberation from the norm, and because of this, we separate them from "us". It's not something gross or a disease. It is simply a difference, like skin tone or being left handed vs right handed. It is part of the mosaic that we call humanity.

As I have grown in my faith walk, I have come to believe that there is no difference between gay couples and straight couples. The love they share is the same love that I and my wife share. Why shouldn't we celebrate theirs the same way we celebrated ours? If two adults are in a loving, caring monogamous relationship, why is that different for straights and gays?

In the end, ask yourself, what is so special about a marriage? If it and a civil union are "essentially the same" or "as good as", why aren't they interchangable? Marriage at one time was just an exchange of property, the father paying someone a dowlry to take a daughter off his hands. Women were expected to be faithful, but not necessarily the man. It has only been in our recent history that marriage has been for love (at least since the trubadors) as a committment on both sides. Who's to say we can't change it again?

Muddling-We can disagree on these issues, but at least in my mind, I am trying to find a middle ground that is not offensive and helps both sides reach some kind of truce without name calling. Apparently you don't share any part of that philosophy so making any mutual progress here seems to be a casualty.

Hillbilly-I appreciate your explanation but, even though we have both had positive (and negative) experiences with gays, my conclusions have not changed to the degree yours have. Once we get to the point where you see there is nothing different - and I see there IS something different, our paths separate and they remain apart - similar in many respects as to the person's inherent value, but dissimilar when we consider whether this is (in your words) an aberration from the norm.

I'm open to more civil dialog, but I'm not particularly interested in getting into any pejoratives and name calling (Mr. Muddle). That doesn't help any of us bridge any gaps here.

Don,

Where is the disconnect? Is it that you believe homosexuality to be a choice? Or is it just that it is different? I really am trying to see from your perspective, but it is difficult.

In my personal philosophy, I have come to several conclusions:

A. Our sexuality is in fact something we are born with. I've heard from too many LGBT's and the story is always the same: when puberty hits, they aren't attracted to the opposite sex. So if it is something that they are born with and not a choice, then it can not be sinful or evil, any more than being left handed or having blue eyes is.

B. The "Biblical arguments" against homosexuality don't hold up to close scrutiny. First, since the concept of homosexuality did not come of age, and since the word wasn't invented until then, the bible can't really talk about it. Second, the laws in Leviticus that discuss it in a litteral translation are sentence fragments that don't make sense alone. Translators have had to interject what they thought it meant (see wikipedia). Third, Sodom and Gomorra's sin, according to later passages in the bible, was pride, not homosexuality. Isreal is constantly compared to them for not following the hospitality laws and treating its poorest citizens wrongly. It wasn't until the 7th century AD that Sodom and Gomorra's story was equated with it. Fourth, the passages in Romans and Corinthians actually deal with a practice called pediastry, and not what we today call homosexuality. NAMBLA is closer to what it meant than the Lesbian/Gay Alliance.

C. Any time you separate someone you discriminate. You can not "hate the sin but love the sinner," regardless what your pastor tells you. We label people, and it dehumanizes them. Why do you think some people feel good about physical gay bashing? Because they don't see gays as human anymore. They are different, separate, not us. It's the same tecnique we've used for centuries to justify killing in wartime. It's how slavery and the Jim Crowe laws were justified. It's how women were marginalized. And it's just wrong.

You may be insulted when I compare what gays go through to what blacks went through until the mid 60's but it's the closest analogy I have. LGBT's are taught from an early age that what they are is abborant, an abomination even. They have to learn to edit everything they say in order to hide who they are. Many don't make it past their teen years due to suicides. Men and women have lost their families for "coming out of the closet" not to mention being beaten, killed and even raped (yes, same sex rape by "hetero's" at that). And that' s here in America, the home of the free. We treat LGBT men and women like second and third class citizens. It is unfair, unamerican, and inhuman to continue this.

I hope you understand, Don, I am doing my level best to remain civil. I am not gay, but I still know injustice when I see it. When I see anyone marginalized it makes me angry. When it is done in the name of God is even worse.

These discussions about gay marriage remind me of those about the Equal Rights Amendment. People that are trying to justify not passing it say "we have laws that do essentially the same thing." The truth is, laws are easily repealed, and are pieced together leaving gaps, so they are NOT the same thing. At any time those rights that women have fought for can be taken away, unlike an amendment that is much more difficult to change.

"Essentially the same" is a BS line, through and through. It is NOT the same, no way, no how.