Thursday, January 06, 2011

Civil Unions in Maryland?

The Gazette is reporting that a Republican state Senator is going to sponsor a bill allowing civil unions for same sex couples in Maryland.
ANNAPOLIS — Senate Minority Leader Allan H. Kittleman plans to sponsor legislation in the upcoming General Assembly session that would legalize civil unions for all Marylanders, regardless of sexual orientation.

His proposal, which he detailed in an interview Wednesday prior to issuing a news release, would grant same-sex couples the same rights and benefits extended to heterosexual couples.

"My initial goal was to allow civil unions for everybody and have marriage, which most people see as a religious institution, as something separate," said Kittleman (R-Dist. 9) of West Friendship, who stressed he was submitting the bill on his own and not on behalf of the GOP caucus. Kittleman to sponsor bill legalizing civil unions

There is a subtle but clear line between a "civil union" and a "marriage." A state can give same-sex couples the legal rights that heterosexual married couples have, without granting them the social legitimacy of being a real, loving, family. It'd be like a business contract that covers things like inheritance and visitation, insurance plans and employment benefits. And that's nice, long-term committed gay couples certainly deserve that as much as straight couples. But is it enough?

What if the state licensed civil unions and not marriages, and left marriage to the religious authorities?
However, in hopes of reaching consensus on the divisive issue, the bill stops short of formally legalizing gay marriage in Maryland. It retains the right of marriage for opposite-sex couples who receive certain benefits through the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Same-sex couples would not miss out on any rights or benefits in being allowed to have civil unions, even if not granted marriage equality.

"I don't want people to think it's separate but unequal," he said.

If one group is allowed to refer to themselves as married while the other group is not, that is separate but unequal.

And don't forget, the Defense of Marriage Act (read the section titled "Effects") means that there are some privileges same-sex couples cannot have, no matter what a state decrees.
Kittleman said he has received various reactions from members of the GOP caucus and at least one Democratic senator with whom he has shared the proposal. Some Republicans have reservations about embracing any legislation that would give further recognition to gay couples, and others have signaled it could be a good compromise on the contentious issue, he said.

"If government gets out of the marriage business and focuses on civil unions, then I'm hopeful that some of the controversy [surrounding gay] marriage will dissipate, and we can focus on civil unions for everybody while preserving the sanctity of marriage," he said.

And the "sanctity of marriage" being a religious concept, ideally religious organizations would decide for themselves whether to approve any particular civil union as a marriage. I'm guessing the Baptists might decide not to give their blessing to same-sex partners, the United Church of Christ might decide the opposite. And there you've got it, religious freedom for all.

Oh and by the way, "not religious" would have to be respected, too, government can't require you to belong to an organized religion. So there would have to be accommodations for secular ceremonies, too.

This might be the way for convergence on the difficult issue of marriage equality. I have never understood why the government licenses marriages. It seems to me that marriage is a religious concept, and that is why there's a big fight about it in the first place -- some congregations with a lot of members do not think same-sex couples should be considered married. They don't believe their God approves. Others worship a God who does approve of such marriages.

It makes sense to me that the state only issues licenses for civil unions, no matter whether the sexes of the couple are mixed or matched. At the same time, religious authorities can perform the wedding ritual for any kind of couple their religion approves.

The restrictions of DOMA are spelled out in the bill itself, only opposite-sex couples can receive the federal benefits of marriage. The state can't do anything about that, but the state can decline to define marriage for its residents and to allow religious freedom to perform ceremonies as each group believes.

In a "traditional" American marriage the couple already undergoes two procedures. They go to the courthouse and get the license and maybe there are some legal requirements to meet. Then they -- the traditional couple -- go to their place of worship and dress up and a religious authority blesses them and pronounces them married. The Senator does not seem to be set on the details of exactly how this would work, but from this article it appears that the proposed law would offer a license -- a "civil union" license -- to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples, and I don't see how the government can tell a religious group that it can't host a wedding ceremony for whoever they want.
Kittleman said he also has spoken with individual members of advocacy groups involved in the issue.

Although preserving the institution of marriage is considered a bedrock Republican value, Kittleman said the inspiration for the bill comes from his father, the late Sen. Robert H. Kittleman, who fought for racial equality during the civil rights movement.

Same-sex marriage advocates have expressed optimism that momentum is building for state lawmakers to pass marriage equality this year. Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has said he would sign a bill legalizing gay marriage if it reached his desk.

Are you surprised that a Republican is saying this? It follows from conservative principles that the government should not be involved in the personal lives of citizens, telling them who it does and does not approve as a marriage partner for them. Doesn't it? The proposed legislation also maximizes religious freedom, allowing groups to practice as their beliefs dictate. Every conservative would be on board this bandwagon, if they believed what they say they believe.

25 Comments:

Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Like the vote of North Carolina Republican Senator Burr to repeal Don't Ask/Don't Tell, Senator Kittleman's proposal shows how far many conservatives have moved from homophobia. Good for them.

**************************

Jim writes:

In a "traditional" American marriage the couple already undergoes two procedures. They go to the courthouse and get the license and maybe there are some legal requirements to meet. Then they -- the traditional couple -- go to their place of worship and dress up and a religious authority blesses them and pronounces them married. The Senator does not seem to be set on the details of exactly how this would work, but from this article it appears that the proposed law would offer a license -- a "civil union" license -- to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples, and I don't see how the government can tell a religious group that it can't host a wedding ceremony for whoever they want.

*********************
At present, the state authorizes clergy to perform marriages. In other words, while the couple needs to secure a marriage license from the state government, they may choose to have the final "contract" solemnized by a clergyperson. Would Senator Kittleman's bill allow clergy to have the same power with respect to his proposed civil unions? For example, could a gay Unitarian couple go to Rockville, get a civl union license (which, like a marriage license, does not finalize the union, but only authorizes it, if they so choose to go ahead), and then have their clergyperson make the civil union official? If not, then there is not full equality even assuming that deprivation of the M word is not such a deprivation. So, in terms of law, the clergy has to be all the way in or all the way out. (Of course, under the First Amendment, no clergy could be compelled to perform a ceremony to which they were opposed. So the "religious freedom" portion of the proposed marriage equality law just clarifies in statute what is already clear constitutionally.)

Another issue with civil unions, as opposed to civil marriage, is that if the portions of DOMA that pertain to federal (not state) benefits -- for example, Social Security or Federal Retirement benefits -- are repealed or declared unconstitutional, then those couples who only have civil unions might well not be covered, since they are not "married."

Whether civil unions might have been an appropriate way-station some years ago when most people (generally out of lack of knowledge) were very uncomfortable with gay people, the culture has moved way past that. Enactment of civil marriage in Maryland would not be greeted with outrage from anyone, except those who, for theological reasons, cannot abide the idea that some people are openly gay.

The Don Dwyers of the state will seek to put the matter to referendum, but, on this issue, they are increasingly a fringe group. While there likely are people who would prefer that full marriage equality not be extended to gay people, I suspect most of them would not man the barricades to undo it. That is the same dynamic faced by many observant Catholics: They may prefer that divorce not be legal, but they are not going to man the barricades to force legal changes to prohibit it.

As Jim often, and correctly, points out, we as Americans are generally a live and let live people. It is time to change our civil marriage statute in Maryland to allow gay couples the same rights as straight couples.

January 06, 2011 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

My friend who was married in France told me that there church ceremonies don't legally create marriages as they do here: everyone, regardless of what their church does, has to go down to the town hall and have a civil ceremony. He said that people in the offices there stop what they're doing and have a little party for the couple getting married, with cheers and confetti and such.

That makes sense to me. Why in the world should religious personnel be able to create legally binding civil contracts?

January 06, 2011 1:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

becuase the government decided at some point to recognize a religious institution: marriage

if someone should get out of the way, it's government

France has been anti-religious for a long time

they are also one of history's biggest losers

January 06, 2011 2:14 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Robert makes a very interesting point.

And Anon's response, that it is different here than in France because "the government decided at some point to recognize a religious institution: marriage," does run right into the Establishment Clause of the Constitution's First Amendment. Is it an "establishment of religion" to authorize clergy to perform marriages that are not otherwise confirmed in law by the state?

From a strict constructionist point of view, one could legitimately argue that giving clergy (but not other non-government employees) the power to engage in the official performance of marriages is an "establishment of religion." Indeed, simply following the words, as Justice Scalia insists, would seem to lead inexorably to such a conclusion. (Of course, nothing in the Constitution would prevent clergy from solemnizing, in a religious ceremony, a marriage. Indeed, under the free exercise clause, a religious instituion has an absolute right to do so. But the question is whether the state can empower them to act as agents of the state, when they are the only non-governmental employees given such power.)

Historically, however, this is one of those areas where we, as a nation, have simply winked at the Constitution and moved on, on the ground that if no one is really hurt, then what is the harm. I am not saying that I agree with that approach legally, but I think I have accurately stated it.

For those all excited about the House of Representatives' reading every word of the Constitution today, here is the actual text of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Before Anon gets all excited and asserts that the First Amendment only applies to the federal Congress, I should point out that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution has been definitively interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to incorporate the First Amendment to apply to actions of the states, as well. It is this "incorporation" doctrine that enabled the Supreme Court to rule that the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) is applicable to state governments, as well as the federal government. It is also why the United States Constitution would prevent, say, the Montgomery County Government from preventing Anon from occasionally speaking with others might consider nonsense.

Here is the text of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I think it is good thing that the Tea Party members of Congress are reading or hearing every word of the Constitution. Maybe they will learn something.

January 06, 2011 2:55 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Robert makes a very interesting point.

And Anon's response, that it is different here than in France because "the government decided at some point to recognize a religious institution: marriage," does run right into the Establishment Clause of the Constitution's First Amendment. Is it an "establishment of religion" to authorize clergy to perform marriages that are not otherwise confirmed in law by the state?

From a strict constructionist point of view, one could legitimately argue that giving clergy (but not other non-government employees) the power to engage in the official performance of marriages is an "establishment of religion." Indeed, simply following the words, as Justice Scalia insists, would seem to lead inexorably to such a conclusion. (Of course, nothing in the Constitution would prevent clergy from solemnizing, in a religious ceremony, a marriage. Indeed, under the free exercise clause, a religious instituion has an absolute right to do so. But the question is whether the state can empower them to act as agents of the state, when they are the only non-governmental employees given such power.)

Historically, however, this is one of those areas where we, as a nation, have simply winked at the Constitution and moved on, on the ground that if no one is really hurt, then what is the harm. I am not saying that I agree with that approach legally, but I think I have accurately stated it.

For those all excited about the House of Representatives' reading every word of the Constitution today, here is the actual text of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Before Anon gets all excited and asserts that the First Amendment only applies to the federal Congress, I should point out that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution has been definitively interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to incorporate the First Amendment to apply to actions of the states, as well. It is this "incorporation" doctrine that enabled the Supreme Court to rule that the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) is applicable to state governments, as well as the federal government. It is also why the United States Constitution would prevent, say, the Montgomery County Government from preventing Anon from occasionally speaking with others might consider nonsense.

Here is the text of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I think it is good thing that the Tea Party members of Congress are reading or hearing every word of the Constitution. Maybe they will learn something.

January 06, 2011 2:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

here's what I get all excited about, David

marriage is a religious concept

when government got involved, they were respecting an establishment of religion

so, if you want to get legalistic about it, the proper course would not be to exclude the religious role in marriage but the governmental role

if you allow government to appropriate religious practices and then secularize them, that's not allowing the free exercise of religion but, instead, giving government the power to destroy religion

if the government wants to get out of the marriage business and only issue civil union licenses, that's alright with me

personally, I'd still oppose official secular recognition of homosexual civil unions because it's not in the best interest of society but that discussion wouldn't be a debate about the Constitution but instead what kind of culture we want

January 06, 2011 5:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"if you allow government to appropriate religious practices and then secularize them, that's not allowing the free exercise of religion but, instead, giving government the power to destroy religion"

So tell us which religions were destroyed when the Supreme Court decided the Loving v. Virginia case that "secularized" interracial marriage?

Remember: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

January 06, 2011 6:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is necessary for government to ensure that the marriage agreement is legally enforceable. Besides the religious ceremony, a couple has expectations -- he won't beat her, she won't run off with the kids, they won't have other lovers, details about inheritance and insurance and finances, visitation rights and so on -- that amount to a kind of contract. Government certainly has a role in empowering and limiting the couple in maintaining this contract. That's all a civil union is, and that's all that government should be involved with. It's like any other business contract at some level, and the reason we have a phrase "ugly divorce" is because people sometimes break the agreement in very selfish and destructive ways.

January 06, 2011 6:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So tell us which religions were destroyed when the Supreme Court decided the Loving v. Virginia case that "secularized" interracial marriage?"

to my knowledge, none

your whole line of reasoning is defective

the Supreme Court was ruling on a secular action but were not considering whether government should be part of the process

btw, you occasionally have someone bring up some old quote with a racist defending his views by making some ridiculous interpretation of scripture

the context, however, is always missing

racism is a secular problem with secular causes

the quotes defending it from a religious viewpoint are simply racists reacting to the fact that the abolition movement and the civil rights movement both began in the church and had solid scriptural basis, which the racists were desperately trying to find an argument to counter

there, now you're educated

January 06, 2011 6:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"some old quote with a racist defending his views by making some ridiculous interpretation of scripture"

That quote was from Judge Leon M. Bazile who sentenced Mr. and Mrs. Loving to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia.

January 06, 2011 8:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so what?

January 06, 2011 10:12 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim writes,

Are you surprised that a Republican is saying this?

No, not really...still I am disappointed.

It follows from conservative principles that the government should not be involved in the personal lives of citizens, telling them who it does and does not approve as a marriage partner for them. Doesn't it?

No, it does not follow Jim...for the State to stand idly by while marriage is further weakened by having it redefined to mean something it does not, nor ever has meant is not a conservative principle. I think the most accurate way to describe this is that it is akin to counterfeiting, a form of fraud, only this time the State is involved.

The proposed legislation also maximizes religious freedom, allowing groups to practice as their beliefs dictate. Every conservative would be on board this bandwagon, if they believed what they say they believe.

Sorry Jim, but I will pass on the Kool-Aid...it is well recognized by those on both ends of the political spectrum that one of the greatest dangers in all of this is the danger to religious freedom. Legal assurances are parchment barriers that will be easily breached by the radical egalitarians on their "thousand mile" march to "equality".

And please, no more about Loving...that decision reaffirmed what marriage is about, the union of a man and a woman, no matter the race. Same-sex "marriage" is as clear a denial of the Loving decision as any.

January 06, 2011 11:05 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anonymous, you revise history in arguing that segregationists searched for religious reasons only to counter the true religious nature of integration and fairness.

Religion has its place, I'll admit, but the notion that "my group knows better than your group" is an essential, perhaps the essential, element of organized religion. How does this differ substantially from other types of segregationism?

MLK said that 11 am on Sundays was the most segregated hour in America? Has it changed?

January 07, 2011 4:07 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Orin, Loving was about a state trying to deny rights based on race, and the SC saying that was a violation of the due process clause.

The analogy is that the statute in question was based on prejudice, as are the current spate of anti-lgbt constitutional amendments.

January 07, 2011 4:11 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Robert is correct. Orin even confirmed "my group knows better than your group" when he wrote gay marriage "is akin to counterfeiting, a form of fraud" and is a "danger to religious freedom." People from Orin's group who share his beliefs might feel that way, but people from other groups with different beliefs realize gay marriage would be a giant step in furthering the uniquely American principle of freedom of religion.

January 07, 2011 5:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aunt Bea's back for more? That's really funny!

"Anonymous, you revise history in arguing that segregationists searched for religious reasons only to counter the true religious nature of integration and fairness."

this statement proves you're unfamiliar with both history and scripture

"Religion has its place, I'll admit, but the notion that "my group knows better than your group" is an essential, perhaps the essential, element of organized religion."

It's an essential of any group. For example, TTFers think they know more than CWAers. Your comment is pointless. People try to figure out the truth and join together with those who have reached the same conclusion.

How else would you have it?

"How does this differ substantially from other types of segregationism?"

It's based on ideals not superficial characteristics, you moron.

"MLK said that 11 am on Sundays was the most segregated hour in America? Has it changed?"

Not completely, because of demographics. Liberal policies have kept minorities from upward mobility and kept communities segregated. So, blacks from Southeast Washington, for example, are unlikely to come all the way out to Chevy Chase to go to church, although they would be warmly welcomed in virtually any congregation, except some of the liberal ones.

"Orin, Loving was about a state trying to deny rights based on race, and the SC saying that was a violation of the due process clause.

The analogy is that the statute in question was based on prejudice, as are the current spate of anti-lgbt constitutional amendments."

MLK said he looked forward to a day when his children would be judged on the content of the character rather than the color of their skin.

See, the difference, Robert?

Or are you still trying to figure out history?

January 07, 2011 6:40 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anonymous, will you enter into a civil union with me? Then you can be rude in person, around the clock.

Thinking people seek the truth, investigate matters, form opinions, and then, yes, associate with other people with whom they agree. But reasonable people keep an open mind, discuss their notions of truth with their associates, alter their opinions based on experience, argument and evidence, and if their associates don't make the same changes, either try to convince them, learn to live with the difference of opinion, or change their associates.

As far as I can grasp, an essential element of fundamentalism is the unchanging truth of ingroup thinking, and the sinfulness of those that think otherwise. It, I hate to tell you9 honey, is just not the same thing.

For example, my opinion of you is that you're wrong, and kind of rude about it, but that's where it stops. Do not you, on the other hand, think that I am an exceptional sinner, and that God disagrees with my thinking? Check back over your posts.

By the way, I've never called you a moron.

So, that civil union, what do you say? James Carville and Mary Matilin seem to make it work.

January 07, 2011 6:01 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon writes:

"Liberal policies have kept minorities from upward mobility and kept communities segregated."

Name one such policy, please.

Anon also writes:

"So, blacks from Southeast Washington, for example, are unlikely to come all the way out to Chevy Chase to go to church, although they would be warmly welcomed in virtually any congregation, except some of the liberal ones."

And what is your basis for this last assertion, with respect to "liberal" churches? Ad hominem attacks on people or groups having no basis in fact are never useful if people with different points of view are to have useful discussions.

Anyway, you are welcome to come to my synagogue, Temple Emanuel in Kensington, for our annual Martin Luther King Shabbat service on Friday evening, January 14. Is your place of worship having a King Service that weekend?

January 07, 2011 10:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Name one such policy, please."

Sure. Liberals side with teachers' union in opposing school choice, which would give motivated inner city kids a chance to pursue academic success.

Instead those kids are forced to attend dangerous and failing hell holes that pass for public schools.

Result: cycles of poverty, incarceration and suffering

"And what is your basis for this last assertion, with respect to "liberal" churches?"

Oh, I've noticed that liberal, mainline congregations in upper income sections of town tend to be aloof and elitist.

No scientific proof that the observation is ubiquitously valid though, so maybe my statement violated TTF doctrine.

"Ad hominem attacks on people or groups having no basis in fact are never useful if people with different points of view are to have useful discussions."

Well, I think my remark had basis and, anyway, I'll still talk to them. I often like aloof and elitist people myself. Still, an inner city minority citizen might not be made to feel comfortable. It's too bad.

"Anyway, you are welcome to come to my synagogue, Temple Emanuel in Kensington, for our annual Martin Luther King Shabbat service on Friday evening, January 14."

who knows, maybe I will

is it easy to get in and out without being noticed?

I enjoy anonymity

I actually attended a service at your place on Sunday morning a few years back

you guys were letting Warner Pres use your back lawn for outdoor services in the summer and I skipped my own church and tried it out

"Is your place of worship having a King Service that weekend?"

no, they aren't

why would they?

January 08, 2011 12:05 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon,

Liberals are split on how to deal with school choice issues in the inner city. (Remember, Adrian Fenty is a "liberal.") There is a very legitimate argument going on that centers on the following question: If we take resources from the schools that most kids attend to make it possible for a small number to get out, won't the rest be left behind and ignored even more? This is a variant of W.E.B. DuBois' discussion of
"the talented tenth" a century ago.

Got another one?

Why would your church (I assume you are Christian) have an MLK Service?

Because Dr. King was the most important American Christian of the Twentieth Century, and his use of Christian doctrine and morality -- using civil disobedience to force Americans of all faiths to look at segregation through the lenses of religious morality and the civil ideals we all said we followed, flowing from the Declaration of Independence -- enabled America to emerge from the country's Original Sin (slavery) without largescale violence. If I were an American Christian, I would want to celebrate his birthday in a religious context.

Of course, Dr. King was explicitly a supporter of the Social Gospel and what he explained was the religious imperative to seek Social Justice. Social Justice -- the phrase Glenn Beck condemned as short-hand for Communism just months before he sought to "reclaim Dr. King's legacy." It was not surprising that Mr. Beck did not apparently see the contradiction in his statements. What was surprising was that so many people failed to call him on it.

January 08, 2011 10:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Liberals are split on how to deal with school choice issues in the inner city. (Remember, Adrian Fenty is a "liberal.")"

yes, he was

and he and his school chief, who also supported the welfare of underprivileged youth, are now gone

"There is a very legitimate argument going on that centers on the following question: If we take resources from the schools that most kids attend to make it possible for a small number to get out, won't the rest be left behind and ignored even more?"

liberals oppose school choice even it is available to all kids under a certain income level, as it has been in some places, or even when all the funds are provided by the U.S. Congress, as it was in D.C.

in no other situation do they argue that spending money in one way would take money from something else

could you imagine if they did?

'let's not give out free condoms in school because that would take resources from the majority who are responsible and give it to the irresponsible few'

"Why would your church (I assume you are Christian) have an MLK Service?

Because Dr. King was the most important American Christian of the Twentieth Century,"

well, that's not true but even if it were, no churches, whether liberal or orthodox, have annual services dedicated to notable Christians on their birthday

of course, on a secular level, there is no other American who wasn't a President and who has his birthday recognized as national holiday while his immediate family is still alive

it's a little ridiculous

"and his use of Christian doctrine and morality -- using civil disobedience to force Americans of all faiths to look at segregation through the lenses of religious morality and the civil ideals we all said we followed, flowing from the Declaration of Independence -- enabled America to emerge from the country's Original Sin (slavery) without largescale violence. If I were an American Christian, I would want to celebrate his birthday in a religious context"

King was a brilliant orator who won the Nobel Peace Prize when it meant something. At a time when many were advocating violent means to achieve full civil rights for blacks, he found a better way and he paid for it with his life. We all owe him a debt of gratitude.

Of course, since he is no longer here, there is no way to extrapolate how he would view the current situation. Many liberals of his time moved to interesting positions later on.

"Of course, Dr. King was explicitly a supporter of the Social Gospel and what he explained was the religious imperative to seek Social Justice. Social Justice -- the phrase Glenn Beck condemned as short-hand for Communism just months before he sought to "reclaim Dr. King's legacy." It was not surprising that Mr. Beck did not apparently see the contradiction in his statements. What was surprising was that so many people failed to call him on it."

I don't pay much attention to Glenn Beck but I do think that conservative positions are, in general, in the best interests of the people who King advocated for.

Economic growth and pro-family policies and access to quality education for all would do more to help minorities than anything that came out of the last Congress.

January 09, 2011 6:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

where did my response to David from this morning go?

this blog is unstable

January 09, 2011 7:19 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Blogger's "spam" feature is terrible. I just cleared out the spam folder, it had several things in it.

JimK

January 09, 2011 7:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks, Jim

sorry if I was being obnoxious

but, just this time

January 09, 2011 7:50 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

You're sorry if you were being obnoxious? I wonder how long we can expect this to last.

JimK

January 09, 2011 7:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home