General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGeorge Takei to Clarence Thomas: Denying our rights denies our dignity
By George Takei
The recent case granting marriage equality across the United States Obergefell v. Hodges contains four separate dissents from the conservatives on the court. I was struck in particular by the dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas, who focused his argument on the notion that the Constitution does not grant liberty or dignity, but rather operates to restrain government from abridging it. To him, the role of the government is solely to let its citizens be, for in his view it cannot supply them any more liberty or dignity than that with which they are born.
This position led him to the rather startling conclusion that human dignity cannot be taken away. He first made an analogy to slavery, arguing that the governments allowance of slavery did not strip anyone of their dignity. He then added to that this analogy:
Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them.
As one of the survivors of the Japanese American internment, I feel compelled to respond.
more
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/george-takei-clarence-thomas-denying-our-rights-denies-our-dignity?cid=sm_tw_msnbc
merrily
(45,251 posts)He is a member of racial minority, He was interned as a child, after being torn from his home and watching his family react to that infamy.
Thanks to the official propagandizing and demonizing we used to do during war time, the Japanese became, in the US, synonymous with bad things. School kids referred to the dreaded pop quiz as a "Jap test." I've been told by elderly people that the Japanese ate our troops during World War II. They mean it literally and there is no convincing them it did not happen. That is the kind of thing he faced as a child AFTER coming out of internment.
He also grew up as a member of the LGBTQ community when that was so much harder than it even is now. Yet, he became a very beloved actor and conducts himself with incredible grace that humbles most of us.
Awesome. Really awesome.
Pacifist Patriot
(24,653 posts)He is probably the only celebrity I would ever be speechless around, and possibly break into spontaneous tears, if I ever had the amazing fortune to meet personally. And I've met some biggies, I don't awe easily.
merrily
(45,251 posts)usually do that
When I hear an actor or actress described as a "star, " I may do a bit of an eye roll, if only mentally. For reasons having nothing to do with acting, Takei is a true star.
rpannier
(24,329 posts)if God came down and explained it to him
BlueMTexpat
(15,366 posts)craigmatic
(4,510 posts)a gay man than I would as a black person. Still that's how the court has ruled over the last decade. Black issues don't stand a chance up there.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)craigmatic
(4,510 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)craigmatic
(4,510 posts)Ilsa
(61,694 posts)There is abundant deliberation and passion in his articles. The logic and clarity are persuasive whereas Thomas' document was nonsense and lacked sincerity.
It's worth a few minutes to follow the link.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)deminks
(11,014 posts)nt
malaise
(268,946 posts)seriously
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)and now that he has opened his mouth, I can see why.
brer cat
(24,560 posts)and I am happy to see Takei walk all over him.
K&R
Spazito
(50,311 posts)"To say that the government does not bestow or grant dignity does not mean it cannot succeed in stripping it away through the imposition of unequal laws and deprivation of due process. At the very least, the government must treat all its subjects with equal human dignity. To deny a group the rights and privileges of others, based solely on an immutable characteristic such as race or as in Obergefell, sexual orientation is to strip them of human dignity and of the liberty to live as others live."
Perfectly stated.
Thanks for posting this.
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)K&R.
abakan
(1,819 posts)Denying your dignity is the point. Thomas is not concerned about the dignity or welfare of anyone, but Thomas and his masters.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)It seems odd that Justice Thomas, as an African American, would be an opponent of marriage equality. His own current marriage, if he had sought to have it some fifty years ago, would have been illegal under then-existing anti-miscegenation laws. I cannot help but wonder if Justice Thomas would have felt any loss of dignity had the clerks office doors been shut in his face, simply because he was of a different race than his fiancée. It is a sad irony that he now enjoys the dignity of his marriage, equal in the eyes of the law to any others, while in the same breath proclaiming that the denial of marriage to LGBTs works no indignity.