I read a little essay the other day about Black clergy telling their flock not to vote in this election because Obama backs same-sex marriage – as though as president of the Land of the Free he should not politically and morally stand up for people who simply seek equality.
The flock was also told, in an effort to keep them away from the polls, that Romney is a Mormon, a religion one of them referred to as a cult, that once banned men of African descent, not to mention women of any descent, from entering its ministry. I couldn’t help but wonder, even if a brother was allowed in the priesthood of the church, what he’d say to a congregation of Latter Day Saints beyond “Damn, I must be at the wrong address!”
Anyway, it was all nonsensical to me and I can only hope that the flock takes time to reflect and realize that the proverbial Adam and Steve is absolutely no threat to the sanctity of matrimony in a world that claims “The third time’s a charm.” And isn’t it a fact that one religion demonizing another is like the pot calling the kettle black? We don’t need that.
What these clergy folks should have been telling the flock is if there’s ever an election not to bypass, this is it and then they should tell them the four reasons why: Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, two 76 year olds, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a 79 year old and Stephen Breyer, a 74 year old. They’re Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and at their ages they’re likely to not be around in the next four years.
And, I’m not thinking just along the lines of an illness or the “d” word. I’m also thinking of a tendency we 70 year olds have of not wanting to do a hell of a lot of work. One of these justices could be chilling, sipping a Dos Equis after a little Zumba and come to think: “There’s a lot I could be doing besides falling asleep next to Clarence Thomas, worn out from wishing he’d speak, listening to a bunch of arguments in doublespeak. I hear Paris is nice.” Whoosh. Gone.
And whoever is president at the time chooses the next Justice and who would make the best choice for us, Mitt Romney or Barack Obama? A man who says almost half of us Americans “believe they are victims” entitled to extensive government support or one who repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?”
And which party, the Republicans or the Democrats would, especially during times when we’re, perhaps, more divided than ever, commit itself to creating a Supreme Court that would affirm our nation’s promise of “liberty and justice for all?” A party that devoted its energies to making a man who was trying to inspire hope in a troubled world a one-term president or a party that fully supported our president’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina, to the Supreme Court?
Down the line those chosen to serve as a Supreme Court Justice will have to deal with the injustices that will come to the fore, now and then, due to the effects of years of police officers having over stepped their powers in checking the immigration status of people they had deemed to be in the country illegally. Justices will have to consider new forms of affirmative action and health care.
Along these lines, Romney has shown no basic interest in our human and civil rights. He steadfastly and proudly supports marriage as a formal union that only a man and a woman couple should enjoy. He does, however, get pretty excited about relieving the filthy rich from having to pay taxes of any consequence. With no social conscience, he leaves tax paying to the millions of us with little to no money, the millions of us who believe we “are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.” We’re chumps to him. I wouldn’t even want to think of what his criteria would be in selecting a Supreme Court Justice.
We have only one choice: Barack Obama. He would nominate people for the highest court in the land who would serve our need to create a more just society. For us to have any kind of shot at preserving what freedoms we have left, considering all the social problems we face, we’ve got to give him a second term in the White House. It’s vital to our well being and the welfare of generations to come, that we don’t blow this opportunity. I hope the flock comes to agree with me.
Photo courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/
If there’s one good thing about Mitt Romney’s rather harsh words being recorded and eventually aired publicly, he very well may have shot himself in the foot. Even many conservative minded people were taken aback by what he said, so he may have very well lost some votes with his very own supporters. Then again, never count your chickens before they’ve hatch (as the saying goes) because there are plenty of people who are in full concurrence with his words and may be taking them more literally then Mitt himself meant.
Ernie McCray says
And that’s the scary part, isn’t it, that there are plenty of people in concurrence with Romney? And many of them are in the group he was putting down.
Anna Daniels says
Ernie, you have a way with words–“There’s a lot I could be doing besides falling asleep next to Clarence Thomas, worn out from wishing he’d speak, listening to a bunch of arguments in doublespeak. I hear Paris is nice.”
Elections have consequences. Thank you for reminding us of those consequences.
Ernie McCray says
You’re pretty agile with words also as you demonstrated in your piece on Romney and the 47%: “The wealthiest among us are like the lilies of the field which neither spin nor toil. Instead, their money works for them, worming its way through tax loopholes, shored up by public subsidies and then hanging out in offshore tax havens for R&R.” With me, worms seem to work their way through what little dough I have.