34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - (508) 222-7000
Opinion
GUEST COLUMN: Rights wrong topic for vote
Top Headlines
EDITORIAL: Register voters on the spotLETTERS: Clerk showed courage on gay rights issue; Newspaper coverage gave unexpected thrill; Look at the record on unemployment, tax cutsGUEST COLUMN: Rights wrong topic for voteGUEST COLUMN: Cost of failed leadership risingGUEST COLUMN: Immigration views complicated
I'm writing today, again, about the issue of marriage equality. You know how strongly I feel that matters of civil rights should not be decided by plebiscite. Recently, you received "Better Angels," a video from MassEquality about the anti-marriage equality amendment in Wisconsin (available at www.massequality.org/ads/betterangels.php). I'm certain you watched the video and gave it your full consideration. I believe it goes far in demonstrating how dangerous and un-American a plebiscite on civil rights can be. As surely as black people deserve to be free from slavery, as surely as people of color deserve the right to vote, as surely as all women deserve the right to vote, as surely as black children deserve not to be kept from schools because of their race, as surely as adults deserve to marry the person they love, regardless of racial differences, as surely as Native Americans deserve the right to practice their own religions, as surely as all of those rights have been acknowledged and affirmed without plebiscite, so adults in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts deserve to continue to be able to marry the person they love, regardless of that person's sex or gender. And they deserve to keep that basic civil right without having it put to plebiscite. The Nazis had a term for the people they felt were sub-human. They called them "untermenschen". I am afraid that is how much of the Right and many of the people who oppose marriage equality feel about lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-gender citizens and their allies. Sub-human. Undeserving of certain basic human rights. On the other hand, the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche used a term that describes the opportunity you have now. That term is "Übermenschen", the one who is willing to risk all for the sake of the enhancement of humanity. I urge you to be übermenschen. I know this issue has been a difficult journey for you. And I truly appreciate the time and energy you have expended as you continue to consider this question. I also know the forces working upon you from your own political party, from your family, and from your constituency. But I urge you to take this opportunity to stand with the people who advised Lincoln to write the Emancipation Proclamation; with the brave legislators who ratified the 13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments; with the Supreme Court justices who decided Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka and Loving vs. Virginia; and with the Congress who made the effort to undo a grave wrong perpetrated against Native Americans by passing the 1978 Freedom of Religion Act. At the time that each of those oppressed groups sought relief, they were considered "untermenschen" - sub-human - by perhaps the majority of Americans who were burdened with prejudice and hatred against people they did not know and with whom they could not empathize. During each of those struggles for freedom, there were Americans who quoted from their Bibles and pointed to "tradition" to "prove" that those groups must not receive the same rights as the majority, predicting, in some cases, that it would damage "the institution of marriage or adversely [affect] the critical role it has played in our society." But, thank goodness, legislators and judges with vision, patriotism, and a belief in what America is and what it could be made the hard decision to risk all for the sake of the enhancement of humanity. Who among us would take away the rights of those groups now? Sadly, we find ourselves at that very crossroads in our Commonwealth today. The rights of a group of citizens has been acknowledged and affirmed by the courts in Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health - much as in the cases of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka and Loving vs. Virginia - and those rights are now in danger of being snatched away. You have the power to keep that injustice from being committed. I am certain that you wouldn't entertain the call for a vote on the cases that established the right to interracial marriage or required school desegregation. Please, don't allow a vote on marriage equality that might undo all the good that has been done for LGBT people and their families. Be the übermenschen now, and I promise that you will be remembered and revered as a righteous man who made the hard decision to risk all for the sake of the enhancement of humanity. MARY-ANN GREANIER lives in Plainville.
Post Your Comments GRANDFATHER OF THREE wrote on Jun 6, 2007 3:07 PM: " HEY KAREN, WHAT IF THOSE PARENTS WANTING GRANDKIDS GET THEM AND ONE OF THEM IS GAY? DON'T YOU THINK THOSE "GRANDPARENTS" WOULD WANT TO KNOW THERE GRANDKIDS HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE??? YOU SOUND VERY SELFISH AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE GRANDKIDS YET I AM NOT SURE WHEN YOU WILL BE READY. I HAVE GRANDCHILDREN AND ONLY WANT THE BEST FOR THEM...NOT WHAT'S BEST FOR ME! " Donna wrote on Jun 6, 2007 2:39 PM: " Even Better, thank you Kevin. Sorry Joey, Martin Luther King's WIFE isn't credible enough LOL HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! - great response kid! "
" Joey L. wrote on Jun 6, 2007 1:39 PM: " Kevin wrote " To Donna, Coretta Scott King was the wife of MLK. " YES, that's my point Kevin. " Sean wrote on Jun 6, 2007 11:37 AM: " Karen, until you realize that all life is a miracle and that under all circumstances life is not "unfortunate," I don't think you will be truly happy. You can't control life and then call it "natural." Sounds like you need some real soul searching. " Kevin wrote on Jun 6, 2007 9:06 AM: " To Donna, Coretta Scott King was the wife of MLK. " Kevin wrote on Jun 6, 2007 9:02 AM: " Joey L. Are you saying that she represents all blacks, or that MLK thought the same thing? Let's see his quote. I referenced the Black Caucus, the political representatives of the group. This is a political debate after all. " Greg Amenta wrote on Jun 6, 2007 8:48 AM: " Joey - way to shut Kevin down and anyone else who thinks that African American struggles were any different than the ones gays encounter today. " Karen wrote on Jun 6, 2007 8:39 AM: " Sean, So, How is wanting grandkids communist or like Hitler? All you have is namecalling. For crying out loud, Do you know what Hitler was? You insult millions of people when you callously use his name for such a feeble point. Hitler wanted to take over the world and he killed millions. I'm talking about parents wanting grandkids, and great grandkids, etc.. I see NO similarities. " Sean wrote on Jun 5, 2007 10:10 PM: " Karen, I am not going to comment too much on your statement: " Sean, Perhaps it is because the parents would like thier family line to continue naturally. " except that it sounds very communistic and dare I say "hitleresque???" " Donna wrote on Jun 5, 2007 9:50 PM: " Sorry Joey, Martin Luther King's daughter isn't credible enough LOL HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! - great response kid! " Joey L. wrote on Jun 5, 2007 9:13 PM: " Kevin - you aren't as well read as you come off to be - read on scholar boy: POMONA, NJ (AP) — The widow of Martin Luther King Jr. called gay marriage a civil rights issue, denouncing a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban it.
Constitutional amendments should be used to expand freedom, not restrict it, Coretta Scott King said Tuesday.
"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."
" The Hamburglar wrote on Jun 5, 2007 3:55 PM: " Mickey D, You clown. Write all the bumper sticker phrases you want. Right now I'm getting away with all your burgers. Ha! Time to call Mayor McCheese. :-) " Kevin wrote on Jun 5, 2007 2:09 PM: " It is not civil rights. Ask Blacks what they think. One does not wear their homosexuality on thier person, like race or sex. check out some info:
"Black caucus resists comparison of gay 'marriage' to civil rights
By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMEShttp://www.washtimes.com/national/20040315-122503-3346r.ht
or this by Courtney Dunbar in the Harvard paper "The Record"
The Civil Rights Movement found its roots in the truth that Black Americans experience social, legal and economic oppression based on the color of our skin. The movement was about leading America to overcome its hideous racial history. It was a fight for racial equality. It is untenable to suggest that the treatment of homosexuals in this country bears any resemblance to that of Black people. It is insufferable to hear that the prohibition against gay marriage is the logical equivalent of now invalid laws against interracial marriage. The Black American experience is one of overcoming racism and ethnic hatred. There is no group - no group - that has been faced with, nor overcome, the obstacles that Black people have experienced in America. But specifically, homosexuals in America have no history of racial enslavement or resulting economic oppression. The bottom line is that it is offensive and racially insensitive for gay marriage proponents to argue that their movement finds its ideological roots in the struggle for Black equality.
" Donna wrote on Jun 5, 2007 2:06 PM: " Karen read Spamalot's entry, you may learn something. " Kevin wrote on Jun 5, 2007 1:15 PM: " Spamalot, Please educate us all by stating some legitamate studies PROVING that the homosexual acts or impulse is not a chioce. Thanks. " mickey d wrote on Jun 5, 2007 11:51 AM: " It's either "Liberty and justice for ALL" or "Liberty and justice for NONE". " NOT a RIGHT wrote on Jun 5, 2007 10:43 AM: " Currently a son can marry a father, and daughter and mother can marry,sisters can marry, brothers can marry ,but if of opposite sex they cannot.And no one can marry a first cousin gay or straight. Can anyone make sense of these stipulations? " Spamalot wrote on Jun 5, 2007 10:22 AM: " It's too bad that Mary Ann's excellently written letter and articulately presented arguments will fall on deaf ears (or is it blind eyes, in print?). Rep. Ross (along with Sen. Brown and, especially, Rep. Poirier made up their minds long ago to turn their backs on equality for the gay community and pander to the more discriminatory elements of society. The fact that people here on this comment blog still refer to or think of being gay as a "choice" shows how what little real thinking goes on in the minds of those who "want the right to vote" to discriminate against gays. In the 1920's, voters in Alabama and elsewhere in the deep South were given the right to vote on the subject of interracial marriage and, guess what, they voted to ban it, reflecting their own prejudices and bigotries. Apparently, it's a lesson that gay marriage opponents have taken to heart and intend, ala George Santayana, to repeat if given the chance. " Karen wrote on Jun 5, 2007 10:10 AM: " Donna, A little baby is born addicted to crack, or born with AIDS. That is "fortunate"? " Dan K. wrote on Jun 5, 2007 8:57 AM: " Yes, we are all having alot of fun debating each other, but I'd like to remind everyone to be civil, and stop the namecalling. I'm looking at you, Liberals. Use facts and logic, not potty mouths. " Kevin wrote on Jun 5, 2007 8:51 AM: " Logic, Where are you? Civil marriage is the recognition by the state (ie voters) of the union of qualified citizens. You say" It should be up to the individuals involved. " but those individuals are ASKING for the states recognition, so it is all up to the voters. If they aren't asking for state recognition then they can do what they want.
" Donna wrote on Jun 5, 2007 8:51 AM: " Karen, nothing God creates is "unfortunate," unless of course you're a bigot " NOT A RIGHT wrote on Jun 5, 2007 8:39 AM: " Greg , No one has the right it is a privledge. " Greg Amenta wrote on Jun 5, 2007 8:35 AM: " Kevin - of course the coward didn't answer my question - at the end of the day you bigots will never be successful in taking away equal rights. " Karen wrote on Jun 5, 2007 8:21 AM: " Sean, Perhaps it is because the parents would like thier family line to continue naturally. " Karen wrote on Jun 5, 2007 8:18 AM: " Donna wrote on Jun 4, 2007 2:08 PM:
" Karen - that's like saying what parent wants their kid to be born with Down Syndrome - people are born DIFFERENT - what a stupid comment. "
Donna,
YOU equate homosexuality to down syndrome, is that because they are both unfortunate birth defects? " Kevin wrote on Jun 5, 2007 8:12 AM: " NOT A RIGHT, Way to make Greg eat his own words. Well done. " Logic wrote on Jun 4, 2007 10:22 PM: " To Not a Right-Marriage is a privledge granted to those who are ready for it. It should not, however, be reserved for a certain race, creed, color, sexual orientation, etc. All too often people get married when they are not ready or do not really want it or understand it. There are straight people and gay people who should not be getting married but those marriages should not be put to a vote. It should be up to the individuals involved. " Greg Amenta wrote on Jun 4, 2007 6:45 PM: " NOT A RIGHT, is it a right for hetero-sexual couples? " not a right wrote on Jun 4, 2007 6:17 PM: " So Greg, we are in agreement that it is a privledge and not a right. " Greg Amenta wrote on Jun 4, 2007 5:24 PM: " Hey NOT A RIGHT, slice it and dice it any way you want, same-sex couples should have the privledge to marry, just as you do. " NOT A RIGHT wrote on Jun 4, 2007 3:36 PM: " A license to marry is a privledge not a right.And if I'am wrong then all licenses are discrimatory.Felons should be able to carry weapons children to drive, anyone to practice medicine etc.A license is an exceptional freedom granted in special situations. " Jacko wrote on Jun 4, 2007 2:11 PM: " You pack of FOOLS - a minority is any group born different from the "norm" - African Americans, Asian Americans, GAYS, etc. All minorities need to be protected from bigots and morons. " Donna wrote on Jun 4, 2007 2:08 PM: " Karen - that's like saying what parent wants their kid to be born with Down Syndrome - people are born DIFFERENT - what a stupid comment. " Sean wrote on Jun 4, 2007 1:28 PM: " To Karen: I don't think I know of any parent who outwardly wants their children to be homosexual because of the way society will view them or treat them. Point is, if society makes them outcasts they will be outcasts. Kudos to all of the gay and lesbian heros that are fighting this war right here and demanding equality under the law. " Fuzzy Bunny wrote on Jun 4, 2007 11:05 AM: " Three-way marriage. What's the problem, after all, love is love. Who are we, the public, to restrict love? The age of consent is obviously discriminatory. So are laws against bigamy. Really, where does it end? Hail Love and consent, tolerance and diversity. Any group may call themselves a "Minority" and demand rights for thier "issue". " Karen wrote on Jun 4, 2007 10:54 AM: " Does anyone know of ANY parents who would WANT thier children to be homosexual? " Learn wrote on Jun 3, 2007 11:35 AM: " To Mr. T - What you consider an alternative lifesytle is what science has proven incorrect and Gays and Lesbians have been saying forever. It is not a lifestyle or choice, it is who they are. It is how they are born. It is how our creator inteaded. Unless you are gay you might not know this. We don't have to walk in another man's shoes to know this but you must rely on fact and study to consider yourself an authority. Are you an authority on this subject?? " Joey L. wrote on Jun 2, 2007 6:31 PM: " No Kevin, get used it is a matter of fact with respect to same-sex marriage - there is no use fighting with bigots - you all have peanut minds. " Donna wrote on Jun 2, 2007 6:30 PM: " Mr. T - you are INSANE - how dare you compare same-sex relationships with child rape - you sicko. It's fools like you who kept African Americans and women behind. " Mr. T wrote on Jun 2, 2007 12:17 PM: " If you say alternate lifestyles are ok often enough, people will start to believe it. If you say sex with children is natural often enough, people will start to believe that too. Mark my words, "progress" is scary at times. " Kevin wrote on Jun 2, 2007 11:03 AM: " "Get used to it" is a phrase used by those who don't have the capability to argue thier side. " caring wrote on Jun 2, 2007 9:08 AM: " My hope is that the legislators will have the courage to make the right vote. I believe they need to kill the same sex marriage amendment. In todays world if you are lucky enough to find someone you love who loves you it CAN"T be wrong!!! It doesn't matter if it's a man and a man or a woman and a woman or a man and woman you should count your blessings. We need to learn to be tolerate of things that don't effect us. If you don't feel same sex is for you okay it doesn't directly affect you. Only God can judge and I believe if this is put to a vote of the people you will have a majority voting on a minority that is discrimination at it worst.
The teens of today are accepting and I think the lawmakers should realize this is a hot issue with them and they are ready to vote in the next election against discrimination.
The world is at war do we really feel fighting this one is necessary live and let live. Do NOT judge only God can do that...have you seen him lately???????? LIVE AND LET LOVE put this energy into stopping the war and bringing our solidiers home!!!!!!!!!!!!!! " Mama Sass wrote on Jun 2, 2007 7:43 AM: " Kevin, get used to it. Love is in the air.
" Selfless wrote on Jun 1, 2007 11:35 PM: " To Never Equal: Your love might be "self-centered" but mine is not. Love is for everyone and love is commitment to love. Let us all commit to love and share those rights with everyone. Marriage is for all and should not be taken away from anyone! " never equal wrote on Jun 1, 2007 10:56 PM: " marriage should only be for those who are willing to sacrifice months of pain tens of thousands of hours and dollars to bringing up the next generation, to support not only themselves but those who have not made this sacrifice.Marriage should be more than about our own self centered love it should be about love for the human race.Equal rights with equal sacrifice.
" Shayna wrote on Jun 1, 2007 8:53 PM: " To Kevin: The difference between fighting over words and taking away rights of a minority are huge. You and Jerry and everyone can go back and forth all day about definitions of words but this is about taking away rights that citizens of Massachusetts already have. This vote will be to take away a group's right to marry and not even replace it with what you want to call it - a "union." If you look beyond the words and see the spirit and meaning of this struggle you will understand. " Donna wrote on Jun 1, 2007 8:22 PM: " Kevin - there's no lobby - marriage should be equal because it's the only fair thing. Get used to it, it's here to stay. " Heterosexual Man wrote on Jun 1, 2007 8:17 PM: " To Kevin and Only a License: Webster Merriam Dictonary defines it this way -
marriage:an intimate or close union Sounds like we all need to stop bickering over definitions and just live and let live! " Kevin wrote on Jun 1, 2007 4:16 PM: " Jerry, If civil marriage is civil unions then why does the homosexual lobby need to have "marriage" instead of unions? You are arguing against yourself. And, how do you have a legal contract if you don't accept the English definition of words? " only a license wrote on Jun 1, 2007 4:10 PM: " Iam not so sure bigotry and discrimination are the underlying problem with people.Many folks hold tradition near and dear to themselves.Lately it seems others want to replace the traditions of others and create new ones.The old traditions and new start up traditions should be able to coexist in our society of freedoms.I believe on both sides of this issue are people who feel there rights and freedom are being challenged.How disheartning it is to see folks resort to name calling when both sides have a legitamate and achievable goal that could be resolved without affecting either side in a negative way. " Kevin wrote on Jun 1, 2007 1:58 PM: " Only a license, You are moving toward the only solutions that I see settle the issue, the dissolution of civil marriage. Marriage would stay in the church, and not be recognized by the state. Civil unions would be the only vehicle for the state to recognize a union of peoples who qualify by adhering to the civil union requirements agreed on by the legislature. Acually even this isn't enough. Get the state out of the business of promoting any form of unions. You are a citizen and a voter, and that is the largest entity that the state will acknowledge. Pair up, triple up, do what you please, but don't ask ANYTHING from the state. " Jerry wrote on Jun 1, 2007 1:46 PM: " Civil Marriage, IS a civil union; it is a legal contract. It provides hundreds of protections to committed couples and families. It is about 2 adults who have found the person they were born to be with, and who love each other enough to formally commit to sharing their lives together. Some times with children, sometimes not.
It has nothing to do with the religious sacrament and everything to do with citizens rights. It has nothing to so with a dictionary definition. It is a human institution that has evolved through the ages, as Marry Ann has so beautifully illustrated. To provide the same protections (in theory) to a select group but call it something else is discrimination.
As people become more educated, fear fades and as well as bigotry towards others(an ugly word, but accurate.) " only a license wrote on Jun 1, 2007 12:19 PM: " All citizens have always enjoyed the choice to marry without regard to sex, race, religion or ethnic background.As every license we wish to obtain comes qualifications the applicant must meet.To ask that the applicants be of opposite sex has nothing to do with civil rights but in keeping with the theme and intent of the license.Yet with the changing family units it must be a concern of ours to afford financial protection to the non traditional family be it same sex, mother daughter father son or any people who make a commitment to provide for each other. Maybe a new license is needed to protect the many different and vulnarable non traditional family units " Greg Amenta wrote on Jun 1, 2007 9:46 AM: " WONDERFUL, well-written and accurate letter Mary-Ann. June 14th will be a historical date. Legislators will go down in history for their votes.
Hopefully more than 75 legislators will want to be remembered in history for upholding the legal/CIVIL protections for all, as opposed to someone like Strom Thurmond, who will always be remembered for the oppression of minorities. or like someone like a mother that will not aknowledge her son for the way he was born.
Hopefully more than 75 will take time to look past the deceptive rhetoric being used to promote the amendment, and keep our state off the records of history as the ONLY state to every strip away EXISTING rights /protections of a minority.
" Kevin wrote on Jun 1, 2007 9:13 AM: " Marriage is the union of counterparts, not sames. Words have meanings and those meanings should not be hijacked for political gains. Civil union is the term that best fits the definition of the state recognition of the union of two homosexuals. " Donna wrote on Jun 1, 2007 6:06 AM: " Beautiful letter Mary Ann. Citizens for equality need 75% of the lawmakers to be on the side of justice, the rest of the legislators don't matter. I feel confident that the vote on June 14th will kill the same-sex marriage ammendment. Let's hold "lawmakers" like Brown and Poirier accountable for their vote. " or
|
