I didn’t say that I should. But when members of my government act in such a discriminatory manner, I am often ashamed of them nonetheless. But thank you for telling me how to feel.
I’m not here to tell you how to feel. Too bad you can’t extend me the same courtesy.
Please quote me where I said this was the only thing I’m ashamed of my government for. I feel a “certain amount of shame” for plenty of other things too. It’s been a fairly steady build-up for a while now. But hey, I thought I wasn’t supposed to feel ashamed about anything because it’s not my fault and my government in no way represents me. Or something.
But if you feel that this isn’t that big of an issue, that’s fine. I just wasn’t informed that you were the one who gets to decide that.
Well now you know, so hopefully you will take that into account in the future.
Seriously though, I wasn’t saying you couldn’t feel shame, I was saying that you shouldn’t, and was expressing my reasons for why there’s no point in feeling shamed by this sort of action by a government official.
“Feelings” are not some sacred untouchable sanctuary. Nobody can force you to “feel” one way or the other, but that doesn’t mean people must refrain from arguing those feelings are unjustified and needless. John Ashcroft may feel that “gay pride” is disgusting, may be disgusted by it on a purely irrational emotional basis, but that wouldn’t stop any of the posters in this thread from saying that he ought not to feel that way, and nobody would accuse those people of dictating others’ feelings. We criticize people’s feelings all the time.
I understand where you’re coming from here and I entirely agree with you. In some way I was trying to express my disgust, but truth to tell, I am a little ashamed of the people at the DOJ who are behind this.
As for the state of my mental health, don’t worry too much. My wife has a degree in Social Work.
Well, Ashcroft is an established dickweed, and it’s no secret that the GOP tiptoes around these issues because they can’t afford to throw away the votes of conservative Christian middle America. They’re politicians, their job is to make sure that the largest number of people possible vote for them. If they take teensy steps to appease their gay members, they can score votes on that side without losing them on the other. It’s just what they do.
That doesn’t mean that I believe that this is anything less than a fairly flagrant display of good old American prejudice and discrimination against a minority group (MY minority group, too, so those fuckers better watch out ;)). I’m just not surprised by it, and for most I think it’s more a matter of being gutless than hateful. They just don’t have the principles to stand up to their supporters and say “If that’s how you feel, we don’t need your votes.” No reasonable person would expect a politician to do that to a group of people whose support they DID need to stay in office. And hey, it’s democracy at work, right? If a party with a pro-gay stance can’t get enough support to get elected by middle America, pro-gay politicians should not represent middle America. Those people, however reprehensible and ignorant I feel their views are, are entitled to the same representation and freedom that I am… oh wait. I wasn’t created equal…
Scratch that. I’ll work on this and get back to you…
WASHINGTON, June 6 — Democrats and civil rights advocates condemned the Justice Department today for barring a gay pride event planned by department employees, and called on Attorney General John Ashcroft to reverse the decision. But conservative groups opposed to gay rights rallied to Mr. Ashcroft’s defense, over a matter that has renewed questions concerning his stand on homosexuality. Sandy Rios, president of a conservative Christian group, Concerned Women for America, said that “homosexuality is immoral” and that she was grateful that Mr. Ashcroft had taken such a “courageous step to stand against the pressure of the politically correct elite.”
A group of several hundred gay and lesbian Justice Department employees, called DOJ Pride, had budgeted $600 to hold an awards ceremony on June 18 at the department’s Great Hall to celebrate Gay Pride Month. The group has held similar events at the department each of the last six years, members said, and Mr. Ashcroft’s top deputy spoke at last year’s event. But Justice Department officials have told the group that it cannot hold the ceremony at the department this year because of a new policy prohibiting events not recognized by White House proclamation.
. . . unlike President Bill Clinton, Mr. Bush has not recognized Gay Pride Month. “The president believes everybody ought to be treated with dignity and respect, but he does not believe we should be politicizing people’s sexual orientation,” said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman. “There’s a political calculation going on here by the Justice Department,” Mr. Hirsch said, “and they figure they gain more with the conservative right than they lose by discriminating against gays.” Mr. Ashcroft, socially conservative and deeply religious, was known for his strong views against homosexuality during his days in the Senate. He said then that he considered homosexuality a sin, and he opposed legislation to protect gays.
The American Civil Liberties Union said the decision could violate the Justice Department’s own anti-discrimination policies. A Justice Department official denied that, but the A.C.L.U. said it was considering a legal challenge. “I think Ashcroft has gone out on a legal limb on this,” said Matt Coles, director of the A.C.L.U.'s Gay and Lesbian Rights Project, “and he’s certainly trashed his own personal word in the process.”
Well, it’s worth a try at least. But remember, Bush is the man who dismissed millions of anti-war protestors simply with “I don’t listen to focus groups.”
I’ve emailed the POTUS and other govt officials before. Less than a minute later I get a “thank you for your interest in the president and his administration” auto-reply. I doubt Bush or Cheney will see the text of the email, but it feels good to at least do something. I’m not near DC anymore or I’d probably be involved in some sort of protest by now with Sofa King et al. Possibly the Pride Alliance at my old school, too.
As for Bush not listening to focus groups, he should consider that next time he lends an ear (or a pen, or a bill, or a Week/Month) to a conservative christian group.
Words cannot explain how much I despise Ashcroft. But Bush also deserves some of the blame for refusing to make Gay Pride day official. He doesn’t want to politicize sexual orientation my ass. Sexual orientation is already politicized, and putting his hands over his ears and mumbling “la la la” to himself isn’t going to make that go away. While there are still laws against sodomy on the books, alternative sexualities need to have a political presence. If Bush isn’t actually a bigot, then at best he’s a spineless coward (at least in regard to this issue.)
Let’s pretend Ashcroft kicked out a gathering of black people who got together in a pride event where amongst themselves they advocated the cause of equal rights.
Replace RexDart’s comments about gays and lesbians being discriminated against with the word “Black” and see how they look.
LOL.
Amongst the issues that blacks are most concerned with as pertaining to that aspect of their lives, this has got to be minor stuff. Nor do blacks concern themselves solely with issues relating to their skin color.
Hate to break it to you, but no matter what the prevailing sentiment on this board is, or amongst your circle of friends or mine, but there is still a huge chunk of the country that is either totally apathetic to black rights issues, or is firmly opposed to them. Not only a large percentage of GOP voters, but also rural and Southern Democrat voters, will not even bat an eyelash at this decision, and will either support it or just won’t care. This isn’t even a single molecule of iron in the nail, and the nail is lightyears away from the coffin.
Mary Cheney recently withdrew from the phony Republican Unity Coalition, supposedly to pursue other career opportunities and spend more time with her partner. I like to think that some disgust over recent Republican shenanigans was the real reason but I don’t know.
STFU, Blalron. I’m sick to fuck of this clever little game being played where people go “hey look at how this sounds if you replace word X with word Y”. Fuck off. Blah, blah blah, I know you didn’t put the altered words in quotes so you can get away with it for board rules, I’m saying this whole petty little fucking children’s game has got to stop.
As for the first quote, can you honestly say that isn’t true, even when you play your fucking word-filter game? Last time I checked, both blacks and gays were regular fucking people with regular fucking lives and jobs and friends, and not every one of them defines their entire existence by identifying themselves as gay/black and getting indignant about every little slight perpetrated against their group. Most people have better things to do, white or black, straight or gay, then worry about petty bullshit pulled by some dickface Attorney General that doesn’t affect their personal lives a whit.
And as for the second of those remarks, you can’t even remotely interchange those words. My point was that so many people in this country don’t give a rat’s ass about gay rights issues that it was an overstatement to claim that this would be a “nail in the coffin.” People do care in fairly large numbers about black civil rights, and such an action regarding a black group would be highly damaging to the administration. I forsee no significant negative political consequences for this decision.
In summary, Blalron, shut the fuck up and never pull that cutesy little crap with one of my posts again.
Yes, before if you replace the word “gay” with “asparagus” and replace “black” with “overhead camshaft” it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense now does it?
Unfortunately, RexDart is absolutely right about gay issues vs. black issues. You remember, a politician recently shot himself in the foot and lost a position by making what were perceived to be disparaging remarks about blacks. On the other hand, another politician is able to come right out and insult gays, and the administration congratulates him for his “honesty.”
The point on which Eve regretfully concurs with Rex Dart is, alas, sad but true. But I rather think that Blalron’s point in doing the substitution is fairly accurate – in a similar circumstance, most people would feel that Mr. Ashcroft was being somewhat bigoted in his refusal to countenance such a get-together.
Okay, other than the obvious difference of ethnic origin vs. sexual orientation, wherein lies the difference? Is RexDart’s point here what is at issue?
News for folks that think like that: Back in the Fifties and earliest Sixties, there were only a small group that cared about black civil rights. The number grew. And, surprising as it may seem to some, people do care in fairly large numbers about gay civil rights. The proportion differs from 0.00000001% in Maud, MO to probably 80-85% in San Francisco, but it’s today in much the same place that black rights were in 1966.
Now the question is how to arrive at the necessary change without the sort of divisive and evil events that characterized the late Sixties and Seventies.
I was thinking about this, and the fact is that my problem is not so much with the actions as with the message they send. Some of the conservative posters are right when they say that it isn’t a big deal NOT to celebrate something at a government office. But I don’t like the message that all of these other causes are more important than gay rights, which should not get equal time.
Likewise, when Bush removed hate crime protection from gays as governor of Texas, I didn’t have a problem with the fundamental idea of it. I disagree with the whole concept of “hate crimes”, I believe that it goes in to the realm of government legislating thought, and however noble I think their motivations may be, I don’t think it’s a good thing. Still, leaving hat crimes legislation in place for many minority groups, but not for gays, sends the message that the state is not interested in protecting our rights.
