IPI
5A
OPINIONS/Wlie eiistloae #o8t
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Time has come
for re-defining
modem marriage
Same sex marriage discussions can conjure up passion
ate disdain for the homosexual lifestyle. The
Massachusetts and Nevi^ Jersey Supreme Court rulings
coupled with the acceptance of same-sex clergy in the
Episcopal Church are forcing the plight of the same-sex
couples to the front burner in the national debate on mar
riage. Some heterosexual people appear to have serious
worry that the homosexual lifestyle is gaining mainstream
legitimacy, so they want to squelch the idea before it gains
■
Sherman
Miller
I chatted with some late fifty-and early
sixty-something Christians to get then-
view on the symbolism of the New Jersey
Supreme Court same sex ruling. One of
these persons is known to take some liber
al stances on issues. Yet they aU displayed
disdain towards the idea of having same-
sex marriage legitimated. One chap argued '
that there are legal things that need to be
resolved as inheritance rights, but he felt
that same sex relationships should be
called anything expect marriage. Another chap ar^ed
that Europe and Japan are dying today because people
stopped having children.
I asked the group if we are forcing our Judeo-Christian
beliefs on people who may be atheists or agnostics who
might accept same-sex relationships? They did not move
from their conservative reMgious positions. It was clear
that although we claim not to believe in a state religion
America is really imderpinned by Christian values.
In light of the New Jersey same sex ruling, Reverend Dr.
Peter Bramble of New York, an Episcopal priest, was
asked to share his feelings on the acceptance of same-sex
clergy relationships in the American Episcopal Church. He
declared, “The Episcopal Church is an agent of the devd!”
He sees himself as an Orthodox Episcopahan who wants
no part of same sex marriage in the clergy.
Reverend Bramble passionately argued that marriage is
between a man and a woman and sex should produce a
child. He saw same sex relationships as selfish because
they offered gratification to the two people involved but
they do not produce the next generation.
Reverend Bramble poured forth, “The sperm dies and no
child comes fium it! A man shouldn’t sleep with another
man. I just don’t believe in it.” Then he ardently worried
aloud over the disappearance of the United States when
same-sex partners started to die out leaving no children
because he felt that people are unwilling to make the sac
rifice to parent the next generation.
In pondering changes in the laws to allow same sex mar
riage, the obvious question becomes, “Should polygamy
also be legitimated because de facto polygamy may already
be today’s imderground marital paradigm in some sectors
of the nation?” 'The U.S. Census Bureau reported on
Percent of Households That are Married-Couple Families:
2005. We marveled at fewer than 50 percent (49.7 percent)
of the households are married. However, what was not
highlighted was that Washington, D.C. had only 21.8 per
cent of the household married.
Do we look at D.C. as a model of tomorrow’s marital
direction for U.S. households? If the D.C. marital direction
is a prelude of tomorrow, then both issues of same sex mar
riage and de facto polygamy need be included in the
national debate of a redefinition of the modem marriage.
On the other hand, the definition of marriage has stood the
test of hundreds of years; so I am not personally convinced
that there is sufficient need to redefine it now.
SHERMAN MILLER is a syndicated columnist.
Is America ready to
elect a president
who isn’t white?
There is no doubt that the 2006 midterm elections have set the
stage for some historic developments for women and minorities in
the political arena. The Democratic Party’s success this past
Election Day has paved the way for a number of firsts.
With the party’s takeover of the U.& House of Representatives,
Rep. Nancy Pelosi becomes the first female Speaker of the House,
while Rep. Charles Rangel is poised to take over the helm of the
powerful House Ways and Means Committee - the first AMcan
American to have the job. And in Massachusetts, Deval Patrick,
chief of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under
President Clinton, won his bid to become the second
elected Aftican American governor in U.S..history
after former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder, who served
in the 1990s.
By the same token, 'Ibrmessee Rep. Harold Ford,
who ran a remarkable campaign, lost in his bid to
become the first Afncan American senator fi^jm the
South since Reconstruction. Ohio Secretary of State
Kenneth Blackwell, Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael
Steele and former Pittsburgh Steeler Lynn Swan
were all defeated in their respective races for gover
nor. And in Michigan, voters gave affirmative-action foes a victory
by approving Proposal 2, which bars use of race- and gender-con
scious remedies by state colleges and universities as well as gov
ernmental agencies.
But the recent electoral outcomes still beg the question - if the
nation is willing to have an Afiican-American lead one of Capitol
Hill’s most influential committees, a black female Secretary of
State and a female speaker of the House, is it ready to elect a
female and/or African-American to be president?
According to a recent Gallup Survey, the answer is a resoimding
yes: 58 percent said they believed the United States is ready to
elect a black president and 61 percent - a female. But are voters
ready to put their vote where their mouth is?
With more than 9,000 public officeholders nationwide, blacks
have made major progress on the political front since the civil
rights movement of the 1960s. In 1967, Edward Brooke of
Massachusetts became the first popularly elected African-
American to serve in the U.S. Senate. In 1969, the Congressional
Black Caucus was formed with 13 members. In 1972, New York
Rep. Shirley Chisholm, the first black woman elected to the U.S.
House, showed that a black woman could throw her hat into the
presidential ring “in spite of hopeless odds” to demonstrate her
“sheer wfil and refusal to accept the status quo.”
By 1984, Reverend Jesse Jackson galvanized the black commu
nity and liberal democratic base in bringing his candidacy from the
fringe to the mainstream within the Democratic Party.
“’White folks were indignant that he was running,” said Eric
Easter, who worked on both of Jackson’s campaigns, in a 2003
Village Voice story. “And then black folks got indignant that they
were indignant....
'There was this very stror^ visceral reaction to his presence in
the race, over whether this was the right time and right place for
an Aftican American to be, and that galvanized his base.”
By 1988, he more than doubled his 1984 results, winning 11 pri
maries before losing to Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. In
1996, Alan Keyes ran for the GOP nod but had better success in
2000, taking 14 percent of votes in the Iowa caucuses and 21 per
cent in the Utah primary. Some news organizations even declared
him the winner of the presidential debates.
In 2004, Rev. A1 Sharpton and former Sen. Carol Moseley
Braun,the first Black woman elected to the U.S. Senate, vied for
the Democratic nomination, collecting few delegates.
Not since 1988 has a minority candidate seen Jackson’s success.
Now, two decades later, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama may be just
the candidate to make history. Largely unknown in 2004, Obama
emerged from a very crowded field to win a U.S. Senate primary,
paving the way for keynote speaking opportunity at his party’s
national convention. His performance caused the nation to take
note, and his subsequent landslide over Keyes sealed the deal.
A December 2005 article in The New Republic argued that
Obama would have his best chance of winning the White House in
2008, with no incumbent president or vice president in the race.
'Time magazine recently put Obama on its cover with the head
line — ““Why Barack Obama Could Be The Next President.” An
editorial in the Chicago Tribune compared a possible Obama bid to
President John F. Kermedys successful run in 1960.
According to a recent CNN poU, the Illinois Democrat trailed
only New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in a list of potential
Democratic presidential contenders. Of registered Democrats, he
drew support from 17 percent - compared to Clinton’s 28 percent.
He still outpoUed former Vice President A1 (jore (13 percent), 2006
Vice Presidential hopeful John Edwards (13 percent) and Sen.
John Kerry (12 percent).
On the GOP side, neither Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
nor Keyes was even included as a possible presidential candidate.
But does an African American like Obama or Keyes or even Rice
have a realistic chance of taking the White House in 2008 or 2112
or even 2116? (Jr is the hype just fodder for pimdits and journal
ists?
MARC H. MORIAL is president/CEO of the National Urban League.
John Kerry told an
unspoken truth
about militaiy
Ok, so now we have heard enough about Senator
Kerry’s attempt at being witty. As you remember, one
week prior to the November 7th election, the
Republican establishment went after Massachusetts
Senator John Kerry. Kerry was quoted: “You know,
education, if you make the most of it, you study hard,
you do your homework and you make
an effort to be smart, you can do well.
If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
The Republicans seized on this
remark in order to go after Kerry for
allegedly “troop-bashing.” Kerry fired
back stating that he was tired of people
[particularly Republicans] who never
served in war attacking those who did.
Bravo, Senator Kerry!
In any case Senator Kerry apologized
for his bimgling an attempt at a joke.
Nevertheless the Republicans were not interested in
stopping their feeding frenzy.
Kerry’s remarks may have, however, been a
Freudian slip. In other words, while I believe that he
intended to make a wisecrack criticizing President
Bush, there may, at the same time, have been some
thing else that he was thinking about, something
that I think is quite important.
What Kerry’s remarks actually point to is some
thing that you and I both know to be tme: although
the military is called ““voliontary,” there is a draft. The
draft is both an economic draft and a draft for those
who are lost between the cracks of society. If one has
few economic options; if one has not done well in
school; if one is of color; if one is from an economical
ly depressed region, the military can often look like
not only the best option, but the only option.
'This is not troop-bashing. It is a reahty. 'Ibo many
of our youth, particularly prior to the invasion of
Afghanistan and then Iraq, looked at the military as
a means to stabilize their lives and, perhaps, get some
skills. For many urban youth, the nuhtaiy looked
liked an alternative to either gang fife or life in some
low wage industry. My high school-aged daughter
has many friends that fit into one or another of these
categories. I am thinking of one right now and I can
hear in his voice the frustration of feeling that he has
no alternative but to enter the military and possibly
die in Afghanistan or Iraq.
So, where is the controversy? Instead of focusing on
Kerry stumbling over his words, there should be a
discussion about why there are few alternatives for
our youth. In fact, we should use this incident to
engage in a broader discussion that covers not only
education but also the economy. I wish that Senator
Kerry had used this moment to talk about what hap
pens to youth who do not do well in school, or to dis
cuss the fact that with the declining number of high
wage jobs in manufacturing for semi-skilled workers,
the chances for working class youth to succeed—be
they white, black, brown, yeUow, red—is in a contin
uous decline; actually a tail-spin.
It would be too much to expect that the Republicans
would have such a serious discussion since they have
been the foremost champions of the stomping on
working people and the enhanced riches for the rich.
But I keep coming back to my daughter’s friend. I
want to know why this yoimg man—intelligent, well-
spoken, completed high school—felt that his only real
chance to get ahead was to put himself literally and
figuratively in the bull’s eye, in the middle of a war
that he knows to be illegal and that he does not wish
fight.
Why, Mr. Bush?
BILL FLETCHER is a long-time labor and international
writer and activist. Currently a visiting professor at Brooklyn
College-CUNY, he is the immediate past president of
TransAfrica Forum. He can be reached at papaq54@hot-
mail.com.
Instead of focusing on Kerry
stumbling over his words, there
should be a discussion about
why there ore few alternatives
for our youth.
Connect with W[ie ^o«t
Send letters to The Charlotte Post, P.O. Box 30144
Charlotte, NC 28230 or e-mail
editorial@thecharlottepost.com. We edit for grammar, clarity
and space. Include your name and daytime phone number.
Letters and photos will not be returned by mail unless
accompanied by a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
Three eommandments for Democrat majority on Capitol Hill
By Rev. Barbara
Reynolds
NATIONAL NEWSPAPER
PL/BUSHERS ASSOCIATION
If the Democrats don’t flub
it, their winning majorities in
both houses of Congress will
result in one of the largest
transferences of political
power in recent history with
the White House providing
icing on the cake in 2008.
Or, it could become a short
lived bhp and a return to stu
pidity as usual with the
Republicans snatching the
power levels back in the next
presidential election.
While the Democrats wiU
receive much advice on how
to avoid mistakes on the big-
ticket items, such as Iraq,
Katrina, and health coverage.
here are a few principals they
should add to their list, if
they want to stay in office.
Since the nation generally
ignores the Ten
Commandments, I suggest
just three.
1 THOU MUST NOT
DRAG SKUNKS INTO 'THE
LIVING ROOM.
Once skunks are brought
indoors they smell up the
place and don’t have the
decency to leave.
In the 2004 election, the
Republicans dragged same-
sex marriages out of the clos
et into the living rooms of
America as a political strate
gy to reach certain kinds of
Christians.
Some misguided blacks, for
example, lost their minds and
went running after same-sex-
ers, who might represent less
than a tenth of 1 percent of
the nation’s 300 million popu
lation and forgot about the
Iraqi war deaths and the bil
lions it drained from funding
student tuition, health and
housing.
This year, the Republicans
didn’t want to talk about gay
things. They wanted skunk
politics to go back into the
closet. But they wouldn’t. Out
popped Republican Rep.
Mark Foley, the ex-head of
the House’s exploited chil
dren’s committee, who was
sending nasty e-mails to male
congressional pages.
2 THOU SHALL NOT
SNATCH UP THE CARPET.
History provides many
example of how as soon as
African-AmericEins work
their way to the top the rules
change.
'There are high expectations
that for the first time in his
tory, so many black
Democrats will chair power
ful committees. John
Conyers, Jr. will chair
Judiciary, Bennie 'Thompson,
Homeland Security, Aide
Hastings, Intelligence and
Charles Rangel, the House
Ways and Means.
Can’t you imagine how cer
tain folks in high places are
shaking in their boots that
these brave and honorable
men, who have been faithful
to the black and poor, will
have their hands on commit
tees with oversight on FBI
secrets, how resources are
allocated to disaster areas,
and what corporations have
been stealing biUions in no
bid contracts?
Nevertheless those posts
are based on seniority and
should be engraved in stone.
Less certain is that of South
Carolinian Rep. James
Clybum, the present
Democratic Caucus chair,
who is in line to be majority
whip.
3 THOU SHALT NOT
“DIS” GOD
Until U.S. Sen. Barack
Obama arrived on the scene
and began talking about God,
it seemed the high-ranking
Democrats tried to confine
God to the sidelines.
So often Christian
Democrats grieved over the
sins of increasing poverty and
the killing of innocent civil
ians by the thousands in Iraq.
Yet, few high-ranking
Democrats voiced concerns
that God could not be pleased
with the current affairs of
state and allowed the
Republicans to pass them
selves off as the moral voice of
the universe. With the help of
the media, the Republicans
got away with defining
Christianity as the province
of white male evangelicals.
BARBARA REYNOLDS is the
religion columnist for the
National Newspaper Publishers
Association. She is a professor at
the Howard University School of
Communications and the Howard
University School of Divinity.