Liberal Media
If you direct your attention to the last post on this blog, I mentioned an article from Jack & Jill Politics that my girl Chay drew my attention to. In the article Leutisha Stills, who goes by the name the Christian Progressive Liberal, complains that Obama needs some more diversity in his Administration.
I have issues with this. Now, I don't usually read JJP but I would consider myself to agree with the majority of things on this site. However, this time I could not disagree more. I, too, would love to see more people of color in high ranking positions but I will not tell our President Elect how to do his job.
Barack Obama must choose the right people in order to deliver on the promises that he and his campaign made to the American people over the last two years. He isn't holding a popularity contest. Obama must be able to choose people who can do their best within their responsibilities, no matter what color they are.
I am all for diversity but I think this article's suggestions and calls to President Elect Obama are slightly too much. I do, however, tend to agree with the comment posted within the article at the end. A reader suggested that it would be great if Obama could fill lower staff positions with people of color. This way, Obama is opening up doors for POCs that may not have been opened before; doors in which once entered, POCs can then work their way within the Washington, D.C. political system and open doors for POCs after them.
For the confused: I am not saying that people of color belong in lower level staff positions or that they don't belong in high level administration positions. I think that all of these positions should be filled in a color blinded matter.
I wish Barack Obama luck in the next two months and hope that he can withstand both the liberal and conservative medias.
Here's the post I wrote containing the Jack and Jill Politics article and here's the article.
California
November 4th, 2008. Barack Obama was elected as the next president; great. California passes Proposition 8; not so great.
If you're still confused on the whole Prop 8 happenings, I urge you to check the wikipedia article on it. I'll try to explain it quickly: California already allowed same sex marriages/partnerships to be recognized in the state. The proposition which landed on the ballot on November 4th, asked Californians to take the recognization away from same sex couples.
When the Proposition got passed on November 4th, thousands of marriages and partnerships became null and void.
Originally, I was not pleased with the decision but my anger only mounted after I realized the full scope of the Proposition's passing. I did not realize that a state could void a marriage that it once allowed. That pushed it over the top for me.
I'm not sure exactly where the organizing is centered as of now but I think if you disagree with the Proposition's passing that you should hit up the Courage Campaign's site and sign the petition. There are many states that have not even considering allowing same sex couples to marry. California has been in debates about it for years. It's just so much more upsetting in California because I'm sure that many couples moved to California so that they could marry their loved one and now the state revokes the privledge and voids all same sex marriages. It's a big blow to the Gay Rights Movement. It's a big blow to this country.
If you want more information to decide where you stand on the issue, please check out both www.noonprop8.com/ and www.protectmarriage.com/ which are against and for Proposition 8, respectively.
two times.
Posts
7 comments:
1) Melody Barnes. BooYah!
2) Very interesting cover article from the latest issue of the Advocate: "Gay is the New Black"
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid65744.asp
Incendiary title, but you can't blame magazines for wanting to sell. In the end, it was thoughtfully written and addressed the "race-baiting" that came in the wake of prop 8 with due sensitivity. I think it has some good insights into what the gay community is experiencing right now.
3) May I make a suggestion re: how the blog is formatted? I think it might be easier to scroll around your blog if you did small preview type paragraphs for each post, with links to the entire posting somewhere at the end (view inhabitat.com's format). Without having to scroll a million miles to the next article, we can read and decide what conversations we want to get in on much faster.
Just a thought. Great work!
Best,
O
Didn't publish the full url: My bad:
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid65744.asp
FAIL. basically there's an "asp" at the end of that url.
If you'd like to get more involved with Proposition 8, the LA Gay and Lesbian Center is holding a "town hall meeting" tonight, November 25 at 6pm Pacific time, 9pm Eastern time. It's really just an online webcast available at www.lagaycenter.org/Prop8TownHall.
If you want to submit questions you can do so to TownHallModerator@gmail.com
Also, it seems very unlikely that they will invalidate already performed marriages. There's precedent for new laws not being retroactive, with the justification that you should be allowed to live under the law as it currently is, without having to anticipate its changing, and it seems likely that California will recognize marriages performed in this state forever, regardless of what happens with Proposition 8.
Well, I thought that the proposition takes away certain rights from same sex couples that opposite sex couples have. Like visitation rights in hospitals that spouses are supposed to have. Not the same as null and void, but that was the impression I was left under. If you come back to this post, can you leave someplace where I and other readers can look up more about the issue and how it's developing.
Appreciate the comments.
I just did some google searching and it appears that it's a lot more complicated, and nobody really knows whether it will be retroactive.
This site: http://www.bondweddings.net/forum/topics/update-prop-8-not-retroactive claims that "
Although it is extremely unlikely that California courts would apply the initiative retroactively, the proponents of Proposition 8 may file a legal challenge trying to invalidate the marriages of those who married before Proposition 8 possibly passed." and the words I continue to hear are "extremely unlikely."
This article (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marriagelaw30-2008oct30,0,3560871.story) quotes New York University law professor Kenji Yoshino in saying "the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected due-process challenges to retroactive legislation. The Contracts Clause, which prevents states from passing laws that impair contracts, would also offer little protection because the court has ruled that "marriage is not a contract" protected by the clause"
It also says "
Scholars who believe that the law would uphold existing marriages cite a long tradition of courts making constitutional amendments retroactive only if the authors clearly intended them to be so."
All that points to a high difficulty in making the Proposition retroactive. But let's keep hoping!
I wonder if the good folks over at JJP are happy now that Eric Shinseki has been nominated for Secretary of Veterans' Affairs (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/07/obama.shinseki/index.html)
The standard that they are trying to hold Obama to is unreasonable, but clearly it will be a clear upgrade to the current administration. I know Obama is supposed to be the voice of the people, but as they say, you can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time. Once Americans and bloggers alike frame PEObama's presidency with a lens of reality, they will see that he is already doing a very, very good job.
Post a Comment