Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Al Sharpton posed the most fundamental question State/Federal issue

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
grisvador Donating Member (99 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 06:06 PM
Original message
Al Sharpton posed the most fundamental question State/Federal issue
There are those times that I find myself really liking Al Sharpton and wondering "What the hell am I doing agreeing with this guy"

But last night - I was struck by his courage at asking ourselves about fundamental rights that should be protected by the Federal Government and not left up to individual states. Right after other candidates dodged the issue by saying let every state decide...I was even agreeing with them until Sharpton spoke.

While I am usually an advocate of State's rights over the Federal Government (big brother), I find myself torn. Should the Federal Government get involved to protect all citizens or should it be left up to the states to allow civil unions/marriages/partnerships/whatever you want to call it in your state between same sex couples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. Forget about gay people and ask the same question about Asians, or Jews

or women. Or people in wheelchairs.

The problem with dancing around with equal protection under the law is that "equal" is a pretty straightforward concept, and a broad one.

The same states' rights argument was made very effectively by pro-slavery factions in the 1800s, and more recently by supporters of legalized racial apartheid.

The question is an excellent, if less poetic illustration of the famous Niemuller poem ("when they came for the ....")

Those who advocate a separate but equal tier of "equal protection" for their gay brothers today, may be less enthusiastic about the right of their state of residence to put THEM in the colored waiting room.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grisvador Donating Member (99 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yes - its eloquence should be utilized
Niemoller's Poem
A poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller, Berlin, 1939.
Niemoller was a pastor in the German Confessing Church
who spent eight and one-half years in a Nazi concentration camp.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out--because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Niemoller's address to the U.S. Congress

The exact text of what Martin Niemoller said,
and which appears in the Congressional Record,
October 14, 1968, page 31636 is:

"When Hitler attacked the Jews
I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the Catholics,
I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned.
And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists,
I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned.
Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church --
and there was nobody left to be concerned."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Exactly right (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yes, the FEDERAL Government
should be the guarantor of individual rights. Integration could not have been left to the states. Al was right on with that remark.

Now, whether marriage is a constitutional right (for gay people or anyone else) is another question...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yes
that battle has already been fought. It was called the civil war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
morgan2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
6. the only reason people claim "states rights"
is because they're to cowardly to take a devisive position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Oct 18th 2017, 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC