Re: Obama XI: Turn And Face The Strange
Good point. When was miscegenation "decided" on a federal level?
Perez v Sharp was in 1948,
Loving v Virginia was decided in 1967. I could be wrong, but I don't think there is any federal law that says "blacks and whites can get married," only court decisions that say you can't stop them. Even then,
Alabama didn't remove anti-miscegenation language from its state constitution until 2000 (and only 59% voted for the repeal then).
Source, FWIW
Here's somewhat of a conundrum that crossed my mind: Obviously, most homosexuals are "born that way", but
some people choose to be homosexual (or transgendered, or bisexual, etc, etc, etc). Under current affirmative action/anti-discrimination laws, if a person were to undergo a sex change or "race change"(think something along the lines of Michael Jackson), would they then be able to qualify as a minority when applying for government contracts, applying for student aid/college admission, etc, etc, etc? And, if a person qualifies as a member of a class protected by anti-discrimination laws, how does one determine if a person falls into the sexual orientation classification if such a class were added to such laws? With the archaic interwoven policies of anti-discrimination and affirmative action still being enforced, you would have a very, very gray area with self-identification being the basis of claims for protection under those laws. I know for a fact that a Scandinavian like myself can't self-identify as an African-American; what would stop me from self-identifying as a homosexual? An investigation into my private life? Being subject to a psychological evaluation? Performing sexual acts in front of a confirmation committee? Or is being a member of a protected class considered to be "bad", so a person like me wouldn't POSSIBLY self-identify in order to gain an advantage? Which leads me to my point......
I would argue that laws such as these
devalue members of "protected classes" by essentially validating the fact that they need to be given an advantage (via affirmative action) or need to be protected (via anti-discrimination laws). To twist the argument around, what makes it OK to discriminate based on education? Or experience? Or the ability to lift at least 50 lbs? What makes it OK for a tribal government to give preference to tribal members? Or for felons to be turned away for a job after a background investigation?
Once it has been verified that a person needs an advantage or protection based on
what they are, they--by and large--come to expect that advantage rather than making their way through life based on
who they are.
Now, before someone jumps in and gives me a long-winded history lesson on how racism was rampant and still exists today, the vast majority of Americans today are able to look past race--look at our President for prime example #1. What they are not able to look past is the way people dress, talk, act, etc, etc, etc. With all of the same qualifications--or lack thereof
--would Obama have been elected if he epitomized the hip-hop culture? Would Bill Clinton have been elected if he was the walking-talking version of the Ozarks? Would Bill Richardson have been governor of New Mexico speaking broken English? No, no and no. The bottom line is that discrimination occurs every day, on many different levels, and is perpetrated by people of
all political persuasions.
