Another Open Letter to All Stupid People in the Universe

I just noticed today that somebody keyed my Obama bumper sticker.

At first I thought the sticker was just falling apart from exposure to weather. But then I got closer and realized, no, there are gouges only through his name. You can still read his name, but there are gouges in my bumper where his name is on the sticker.

It could have happened a while ago - I don't have a lot of occasion to look at the back end of my car, normally I just get in the driver's seat and go. But I have a feeling that it was done more recently, like since the town hall meetings this summer. Heck, it could have happened while I was AT the town hall meeting this summer. . .

And, unfortunately, it could have happened anywhere. There's a lot of open hostility toward Obama in these parts - my car would have been a target in just about anyplace I would have parked.

Here's what I never undertand: WHY?

I mean, you don't like Obama, fine. You don't agree with his politics, or with mine - fine. You can disagree with me, disagree with him, until the cows come home. We can debate in public or in private until we're both blue in the face. You can put signs and stickers all over your own self and your own property until every inch is covered. You can write letters to the government and to the editor, you can demonstrate in the streets, you can buy time on public airwaves to tell everyone what you think. You have the right to do such things, in fact, I encourage you to do all of these things, and I will defend your rights, nonviolently, to the point of my own death.

But you do not have the right to harm me, disrespect me, or destroy my property because of such disagreement. You do not have the right to tear down my signs and stickers because you don't like who I support. You do not have the right to shut me down just because you don't like how I think or what I have to say. The First Amendment protects both of us, equally. Capisce?

Lucky for you, when I get mad, I don't get even - I get better. When morons like you stole our yard signs in 2004, I spent Wellstone World Music Day putting up twice as many signs, and they were twice as big as the ones that were taken. When I was phone banking or canvassing last year and people were unnecessarily rude to me - I'd sign up for an extra shift. The more idiots like you try to tear the world down, the harder I work to rebuild it.

So I hope keying my car accomplished whatever it was you were personally trying to accomplish, I hope whatever satisfaction you derived from the act was worth the progressive fury you're about to unleash on the world. Because I was just writing to my own Senators and Representative about this health care and environmental stuff, but now I think I'm going to write to everybody representing Pennsylvania, and I think I'll throw in a letter of encouragement to the President while I'm at it. . .

The Main(e) Thing

So my friend Trina, Ms. Community Organizer Extraordinaire, has spent the better part of the past year schlepping across the great state of Maine trying to mobilize Mainers to protect marriage equality for their LGBT family, friends, and neighbors. Despite her and many others valiant efforts, on Tuesday the people of Maine voted to repeal their state legislature's decision to legalize gay marriage.

Some of the commentary that followed this decision focused on how, thus far, the states which allow for gay marriage have created this permission through judicial or legislative channels (and Maine was originally in this camp as well, as their state legislature passed a law to make gay marriage legal). Had Proposition 1 failed, Maine would have become the first state to affirm/allow legalization of gay marriage via a popular vote as well.

This has all prompted two questions in my mind:

First, is such analysis discounting "silent majorities?" I mean, so Maine and California have both taken legislative or judicial action which have been subsequently repealed by a popular vote. But states like New Jersey and Iowa have taken similar actions through similar channels and have not had those decisions challenged by a popular vote. Is it then fair to say that the failure to produce a proposition to repeal indicates a tacit public acceptance or approval of these actions? Will we give Iowa and New Jersey's silence and inaction on this matter the same weight as we've given to Maine and California's vociferous and controversial actions to repeal? In other words, is not bringing it up for a public vote a de facto popular vote victory? And if so, why aren't we saying that out loud?

Second, and more importantly (and I don't know why this never occurred to me sooner), why it is, in fact, so terribly important to make gay marriage legal with a popular vote?

I mean, maybe I misunderstood something in my high school civics class, but I've always been under the impression that our government was created with an intentional set of checks and balances, which were meant both to prevent one person (or group of persons) from assuming too much power, and to protect the rights of the minority. When a miscarriage of justice is committed by one branch of our government, the other branches have the right and obligation to correct or amend it; similarly, when a miscarriage of justice is committed by the larger society, the government has the right and the obligation to both correct that injustice and to protect those victimized by it.

Or to put it another way, when a popular vote denies equal protection under the law, it remains the government's job to provide it.

Which begs the question - are some judges "activists legislating from the bench," as some folks so often complain, or are these judges simply doing their job to ensure equal protection under the law? Where would we as a society be without the "activist" judges behind decisions like Brown v. Board of Education or Loving v. Virginia? And similarly so, where would we be without "interest group" legislation like Title IX, or the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments? And where would we be if Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy had not boldly employed their executive powers to secure both the physical safety and constitutional rights of the Little Rock 9 and James Meredith, respectively? When popular opinion or vote denies equal protection under the law, it is the government's responsibility to provide it.

And that, to my mind, is what is going on here. LGBT people are currently being denied equal protection under the law, insofar as marriage allows one certain legal rights in relation to one's partner and any offspring or property shared with said partner. As such, it is entirely within the rightful sphere of influence of any branch of our government to correct or amend this injustice, regardless of the public's opinion, or official vote, on the matter. Now, I suppose you could debate whether or not marriage is an inalienable right that must be guaranteed to all people, but that's an entirely different argument than claiming the branches of government have no business acting outside of "majority opinion" on this issue.

So, while winning a popular vote to legalize gay marriage would certainly signal a "turning of the tide" as to whose opinion is perceived to be "majority," and while it should in theory, at least, shut down complaints about "activist judges" - I guess I don't see it as so crucial to legitimize actions taken by our government to protect our fellow citizens.

But then again, I'm an Upper Midwestern progressive, I'm predisposed to like government and believe in its potential to make the country and the world a better place to live. . .

Peace,
C.

A Dream Fulfilled

Six years ago I read a book by Roger Wilkins (nephew of Civil Rights leader Roy Wilkins) entitled Jefferson's Pillow. In the book, Wilkins took a closer look at four of the founding fathers, trying to understand how they could write such beautiful prose and build a government upon the concept of all men being equal, yet fail to abolish the enslavement of Africans and continue to personally own slaves themselves.

Out of a sense of fairness, Wilkins refused to judge 18th century men by 20th century standards, he was really trying to understand this dilemma from within their own time and worldview. And the conclusion he came to (roughly paraphrased) was this: privately these men did wish for the fulfillment of their words and ideals for all people living in this country. But they also realized the fledgling economy of their fledgling nation was surviving in large part due to the "free" labor of the slaves. To push for an abolition of slavery at that time would have very likely collapsed both the fragile economy and the fragile new political structure. So, the founding fathers did the next best thing within their power. First, they planted the ideal of freedom for all and the concept of inalienable human rights as deeply as possible, weaving it into the very DNA of the nation. And second, they intentionally designed a system of government that was amendable and adaptable so that, when the day came, those rights and that freedom could be extended to all in this fair country.

Barack Obama's inauguration as the 44th President of the United States is a fulfillment of so many dreams - of his father, of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., of so many throughout this country who never thought they'd live to see this day. But dare I claim that today is also a fulfillment of the dreams of our founding fathers? Because today, Barack Obama is living proof that their system works. Certainly, it's been a long and weary road to get here: 232 years, a Civil War and a Civil Rights Movement, with incalculable suffering and personal sacrifice along the way, mostly by folks whose names are lost to the annals of history. But we did it. We the people have kept struggling and striving together to forge a more perfect union, we the people have kept adapting and amending, not only our constitution and governance, but also our ways of thinking and our ways of living out our founding ideals. And now today, a man who would have been counted as 3/5 of a person in the very first census, a man who in living memory would have been denied service in many a restaurant in this country, today that man was sworn into the highest office in the land.

Which is not to discount the struggle that still lies ahead. I am not so naieve to believe we have fully arrived, I know there is a long and weary road still before us. But I have hope that we will get there. Because I have seen with my own eyes that the system, for all its faults, still works. Because I hold with the good Dr. King that the arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Because I believe that this president, in particular, will call forth the better angels of our nature and will build upon the best ideas and practices of our history as we struggle and strive together over the next four years.

Wilkins relates an anecdote in the book, about a woman who approached Benjamin Franklin on the streets of Philadelphia one day in the midst of the Continental Congress. She is alleged to have asked him, "And what have you made for us, Mr. Franklin?" He is alleged to have answered, "A Republic madam, if you can keep it." It's that last part that's the key - with the security of 200-plus years of history under out belt, we take our existence as a nation so much for granted. But from the very beginning, America has been a grand experiment in self-governance, an experiment whose success is absolutely dependent upon the active engagement of our citizenry. We've been slacking off in recent years, and President Obama rightly called us out for it in his speech today. But then he also issued a clarion call to action. It's an invitation he's been extending since the very beginning of his campaign, an invitation I trust he will continue to extend through every speech and act of his administration.

May God give us each the grace and the strength to answer it.

I Love the Smell of Democracy in the Morning

I just spent the past couple hours out canvassing for Obama. Nothing too threatening - knocking on the doors of registered Democrats and encouraging them to vote on Tuesday, reminding them where their polling place is, asking them if Senator Obama can count on their vote. It's a beautiful spring day here in central Pennsylvania, and 99.9% of the people you meet are friendly and gracious even if they don't support your candidate, so it's not a bad way to spend a morning. I don't know why more people don't get involved in the political process.

Seriously, I am never more proud to be an American than on days like today, when I am exercising my freedoms to engage or serve the body politic. Makes me wonder what patriotism would look like, what this country would look like, if everybody was willing to make a similar commitment. I don't mean a turn your life upside down commitment, and I have no delusions of reaching some democratic utopia.

But I can't help wondering what would happen if, instead of abdicating our responsibilities or relegating our involvement to those who make a career out of public service, what if every citizen, every resident of this country, invested one to two hours a week engaging the matters of how we will live together as a people? What if every person within our borders gave just an hour or two a week in some service that promoted the greater public good?

Like I said, I'm not fool enough to imagine it would eradicate all of our problems, but it sure sounds like a path toward a more perfect union to me. . .