And, now, for the bad news

"Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
--Matthew 25:40 (KJV)

On Tuesday, we elected our first non-white President. Racism is still alive and well in the US, but, at last, we as a nation have overcome it at least to the extent that a candidate can run based on vision and qualifications without skin color being a hindrance. And, though I'm not especially fond of either of them, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin proved that gender may no longer be an issue with voters anymore, either. (Neither won, true, but Hillary came remarkably close, and the importance of Palin's being a female VP nominee on the ticket not usually associated with gender equality should not be understated. I just hope they'll both crawl back into whatever holes they came out of and allow less divisive female candidates to step forward in the near future.)

Happily, Elizabeth Dole's campaign for re-election was shot down after her inexcusable attacks on Kay Hagan's religion. (Unfortunately, neo-McCarthyist Michele Bachmann was re-elected, but you can't win 'em all. I imagine her calls to investigate anti-American sentiment in Congress will continue to fall on deaf ears.)

In Colorado, a ballot measure was shot down that would have legally defined a fertilized egg as a human being. I'm no proponent of abortion (though it is far from an important issue when it comes to me deciding who gets my vote as it is nothing more than an inflammatory wedge issue that will never be resolved), but this idea seems extreme for even the most hardcore pro-life activists.

However, equal rights for all suffered two major blows this week. First, there is the obvious: passage of Proposition 8 in California, which stripped same-sex couples of the right to marry. I may be mistaken, but this is the first instance I'm aware of where a right has been granted to a minority group, then the validity of that right has gone to a vote before a populace still not comfortable with that minority. I'm not sure whether to be more disgusted with so many not seeing this as discrimination, pure and simple, or the amount of time and money donated by churches and Christian groups that could have (and should have) been spent on those who need help. Jesus never told us to get involved in politics; He maintained a very hands-off approach during His life. But He did tell us to help the needy, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. I may be mistaken, and the hundreds or thousands of "Yes on 8" signs I've seen locally may be made of rice and were donated to soup kitchens, but I doubt it. This is why great leaders throughout history have cautioned against the power of organized religion, even the religions in which they themselves believed. The role of the church is to do God's work, not to legislate.

Why am I not as concerned about the votes on the same issue in Florida and Arizona? The right had never been granted there. It's still wrong, but those situations pale in comparison to California's current situation. California judges determined the state constitution did not specify a reason to not allow same-sex marriage, and granted the right to an institution called "marriage" to same-sex couples. Then it was taken away by a vote, because God forbid that judges, who are appointed to interpret the law and rule on complex legal issues because they know the law better than the vast majority of voters, actually do their job. Then they're "activist judges" who "rule from the bench." Unless, of course, you agree with them. Funny how that works, isn't it?

It may sound like hyperbole, but the situation reminds me most of the plight of Jews leading up to World War II. I'm not referring to the Holocaust, which is the darkest moment in human history, but the string of injustices perpetrated as the Nazis took power. Rights that had previously existed were slowly eroded away. Restrictions on what jobs a Jewish man could hold, or what hours he could be outside, or requirements that he wear a yellow Star of David--these seemingly minor acts of discrimination took place over time. And the rest of the population, for the most part, kept quiet. Anti-semitic sentiment was strong, so why would someone defend a group that was hated by most people (including, likely, themselves)?

But that's the thing: it's easy to defend your own rights, or rights you agree with. It's more important to defend those you may not be comfortable with, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of other people. I seriously doubt that homosexuals in the US will be exterminated, but any erosion of rights is unacceptable.

The ballot measure in Arkansas which prevents adoption by unmarried couples is, simply put, stupid. Yes, it's discrimination. But it shows how incredibly dense and hypocritical people are who wish to strip away rights. The intent is clearly to keep same-sex couples (who can't be married under Arkansas law) from adopting. The proponents of the measure made no bones about this in their advertisements and arguments. Yet, to circumvent a 2006 ruling by the Arkansas Supreme Court, it is carefully worded to bar all adoptions by unwed couples. All of this, ostensibly, is to protect children. And I can't help but see how stupid the logic is. "Let's protect kids by keeping them away from potentially loving parents, and keep them in state custody, where they're more likely to be abused and molested, commit crimes, and have serious emotional problems." And, "Let's make it harder to adopt, so more unmarried teenage mothers will turn to abortion." I don't like using such a derogatory word, but I'll say it again in this case: stupid. Hopefully, the Arkansas Supreme Court will shoot down this law born in ignorance and intolerance within a couple of years. (I'm not sure how quickly the court system operates there.)

Maybe one day, we will be able to overcome all discrimination. Unfortunately, it seems like there is always a new target for hatred.