By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“However, law is not color-blind. Law, as the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said, is about experience. Culturally competent law practice requires that one understand societal realities and experiences and the legal implications they evoke. To do otherwise is to engage in wishful thinking at best.”
– Wendell Griffen, “Lessons from Florida v. George,” wendellgriffen.blogspot.com (August 1, 2013)
The best man at my wedding in 1968 was, and is, a gay man. We were roommates as freshmen and he became my best friend in college. He has had a very successful career and has been in a committed relationship for many years. We don’t see each other often, but we remain good friends to this day. And if you had told me in 1968 that forty-five years later there would be preachers urging that homosexuals be confined behind electrified razor wire, or politicians lobbying for the death penalty for the “crime” of being gay, or pseudo-therapists insisting that sexual orientation is a “lifestyle” choice amenable to counseling, or seemingly rational people arguing against full legal equality for all human beings, I would have dismissed your opinion as absurd fantasy. And I would have been wrong.
But I would likewise have rejected in 1968 any suggestion that almost fifty years thence racism would still permeate American society. After all, most of the landmark victories in civil rights had occurred by that year. The courts had issued decrees ending the legislated segregation that had successfully held a race in bondage for a hundred years following the abolition of slavery. Martin Luther King had cajoled and shamed a nation into adopting laws prohibiting discrimination in education, employment, housing and public accommodations. The right to vote, that most fundamental guarantee of participation in the life of the nation, had finally become real for millions of citizens. Racial intolerance would be forever buried with the bodies of its then living adherents. And I would again have been wrong.
The election of Barack Obama as President in 2008 was heralded by many as the dawning of a new age, the age of post-racial America. In his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention, then Sen. Obama had declared, “There is not a Black America and a White America and a Latino America and an Asian America-there’s the United States of America.” Liberals wanted to believe that the election results had validated that speech. The political right argued that the election of a black President meant that racial equality had become a reality and demanded an end to affirmative action and other programs deemed oppressive to whites. The Supreme Court under John Roberts has been happy to oblige conservatives, steadily eroding the foundations of race-based preferences and, most recently, virtually emasculating the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Contrary to the hopes of liberals and the beliefs of Justice Roberts, the notion of a post-racial America remains a dream. If anything, the Obama presidency has brought into clear focus the extent to which racism remains a core feature of society. We saw its ugliness in both election campaigns. Throughout his time in office, the President has been castigated as a socialist, a Muslim (or Muslim sympathizer), a despot and an illegitimate pretender. An Associated Press poll taken in October of 2012 found that anti-black attitudes had increased among whites from 51% to 56% between 2008 and 2012. When he arrived in Orlando two days ago to speak to a Disabled American Veterans convention, the President was greeted by a number of protesters, some of them bearing signs reading “Kenyan Go Home.”
But for me the most telling reminder of the sad state of race relations in this country was the recently completed trial in the case of State of Florida v. George Zimmerman. I know. The demands of due process were satisfied. The jury has spoken. As a lawyer, that ought to be sufficient for me. Anyone who has tried cases before a jury has had the experience of winning a losing case and losing a case that ought to have been won. The system has been crafted over hundreds of years to enable decisions based upon relevant evidence of facts and reasoned principles of law. We strive for the approximation of justice, because that is the best that we can do.
Yet the verdict in the Zimmerman trial is disturbing. I cannot bring myself to accept the result as approximate justice. And I am not alone. Recent polling by the Washington Post disclosed an even split of opinion among Americans on the verdict. An overwhelming majority of black Americans disapproved of the jury’s conclusions, and only a slim majority of whites supported it.
The sides lined up long before the trial even began. Blacks widely portrayed the death of Trayvon Martin as an act of cold-blooded murder. Supporters of Mr. Zimmerman in turn described Mr. Martin as a teenager out of control, a thug with a history of violent fantasies and an attitude prone to trouble. The public was certain that the case was about race. And despite the efforts of Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyers to eliminate race as an issue, it was in fact the unspoken them of the entire defense. I say this because the legal justification for Mr. Martin’s death was predicated upon a series of assumptions that are fundamentally racist. Consider the following themes:
1. As a resident of the subdivision and a self-styled neighborhood watch captain, Mr. Zimmerman had a right to be present in the neighborhood that was superior to that of Mr. Martin.
2. Because Mr. Martin was an outsider, Mr. Zimmerman had a right to question the legitimacy of the former’s actions.
3. Mr. Martin had a duty to justify himself to Mr. Zimmerman.
None of these assumptions was seriously questioned in the course of the trial. The defense created a foundation which wholly lacked any consideration of reciprocal duties. The jury was told that Mr. Zimmerman had a right to follow Mr. Martin. The jury was told that Mr. Martin had a responsibility to explain himself. Why? Mr. Martin had neither a legal nor moral obligation to account to Mr. Zimmerman for any reason. Yet Mr. Zimmerman was somehow clothed with quasi-official status.
Moreover, Mr. Zimmerman created the conditions which directly led to Mr. Martin’s death. First, he unilaterally determined that Mr. Martin was likely preparing to engage in criminal activity. And the evidence for that conclusion? Mr. Martin was black, was wearing a hoodie and was walking down the street after dark. Second, Mr. Zimmerman continued to follow Mr. Martin after being told by a sheriff’s dispatcher that he should relent until the police arrived. Does anyone seriously believe that a black 17 year-old walking down unfamiliar streets at night while being followed by an unknown person in a vehicle might not have reason to become alarmed? Third, Mr. Zimmerman was armed, a blatant violation of the rules under which bona-fide neighborhood watch volunteers are supposed to operate. Mr. Zimmerman crossed the line from vigilance to vigilantism. The fact that Mr. Martin may have initiated the physical altercation is both understandable and pathetically deficient as a justification for homicide.
The response to the verdict was also predictable. The black community compared the case to Emmett Till, the black teenager viciously murdered in Mississippi in 1955. Many whites shared the views of Ann Coulter, who routinely reminds us that a substantial investment in an elite education does not always produce beneficial results, and who concluded, “Trayvon committed the first (and only) crime that night by assaulting Zimmerman.”
The truth is that Mr. Zimmerman was in the best position to prevent the death of Trayvon Martin. But he made a series of faulty assumptions based upon race. As a result he became a predator who, when confronted by his prey, killed him. Racism provided the occasion of Mr. Martin’s death; a dangerous extension of the law of self-defense provided the justification.
We legislate morality, but we cannot legislate moral thinking. The elimination of statutory racism and the election of an African-American President are important milestones, but they are only steps in a long journey. Trayvon Martin was not Emmett Till. His death was not the result of institutionalized and state approved violence. He was instead the victim of the racism of profiling, the racism of generalization and false assumptions. It is racism once removed from the protection of the law. But it is a racism which still kills.
Firstly . . .
“I agree that homosexuality and homosexual pair bonding is real, but not that it is natural or in accordance with natural law.”
In that one sentence, you prove you don’t understand natural law. Again, natural law as it applies to the law is a distillation of universal principles based on observing nature. If homosexuality and homosexual pair bonding is real and observable, it is natural, and reflective of an inherent right that cannot be curtailed absent proof of some specific harm to others. You misunderstand natural law to the point you don’t realize it doesn’t buttress your arguments. It destroys them.
Secondly, whether you claim theism or not, your definition of marriage is manifestly religious in origin, not legal. Just as you say you are not a bigot, your own proclamations belie that assertion.
Lastly, you don’t have to approve of homosexuals. What you have to do his keep your religious definition of marriage off of them and understand that just because you don’t approve that doesn’t mean you have a legal basis for discriminating against them. You assume your approval is required. It is not. It is your right to not approve. It is your right to go on endlessly about not approving. It is, however, the right of others to point out your evidence and reasoning are crap and that your position is bigoted. If you don’t like that? Wear a cup. Free speech is a rough game.
Your citations have been shredded for the superficial understanding garnered by cherry picking that that are. The case law and the Constitution are saying that marriage is a fundamental right, a contract, that the government has very narrow interests in that relationship and that those interests are related to the contractual aspects of the marriage, and that all citizens are due Due Process and Equal Protection as a Constitutionally protected right. The threshold for curtailing someones fundamental inherent rights is strict scrutiny.
Can you name a specific harm to anyone by recognizing and protecting equal rights and equal protections for homosexuals?
That is the one and only remaining relevant question.
And we all know that this point that the answer is “no”.
Homosexual marriage neither breaks your leg, nor steals your property nor makes you literally insane. It is a relationship between two people and unless you are a direct party to that relationship, it’s none of your damn business and that those parties want the same rights, privileges and obligations heterosexual married couples enjoy is both righteous and just in an egalitarian society.
David,
It is not really hard. A number, not an explanation. How hard is it to write down a number? I think most of us here understand things like margin of error. Feel free to write a basic number. If you think it’s important, include the margin of error. You can explain how you arrived at the number later.
Elaine did not ask a hard question. One of my friends is married to a member of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) team. He is able to write down a number without filling a whole page, or a book, with an explanation of how he got there. If he can write down a number, I am sure you can too.
And by the way, you never acknowledged my answer to you regarding the DSM-III, Charles Socarides and Vamik Volkan. I will save you the trouble of looking it up. Here is the link to my first reply to you, followed with my second immediately below it.
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/08/12/ex-gay-gospel-singer-barred-from-martin-luther-king-anniversary-event/#comment-632914
OS – not sure what kind of response you expect. You gave some more evidence for what I have been saying, that the professional organizations have snubbed their noses at reparative therapy. My position is that this is politically motivated, driven by homosexual activists, and is a disservice to a lot of people who have been helped, such as Donnie McClurkin or David Pickup (the video I had shared previously where he expresses how reparative therapy saved him). I agree with the initial statement in the national register, “Sexual orientation conversion therapy is highly controversial,” but I disagree with them saying that and then taking a hardline political position against it. It causes professional practitioners like you to repeat the mantra that there is no such thing as “ex-gay.”
The psychology of sexuality is a very complicated and tough thing. I just think they are taking the easy way out right now.
david,
can I get your book on Kindle?
David,
First, I debunked your misuse of cherry picked cites and provided many more than two of my own as evidence.
Second, that doesn’t make it legal or ethical. You are free to personally be a bigot. You are not free to enforce your bigotry via the force of law. I don’t approve of fundamentalism in any form of religious practice. I think it’s stupid, shows a real lack of curiosity, shows a willingness to be told what to do instead of think for yourself, it creates social discord and often misses the point of religious teachings by being exclusionary and I criticize it often as is my right. However, I respect that you have free exercise and that you are allowed to make that choice for yourself no matter how stupid I think that choice is. I would never outlaw your choice of religion. I would also never seek to interfere with the sexual and social relationships of consenting adults via the force of law. Why? Because both aspects of your life are inherent rights and should be protected by the law. Equally.
Third, “subjective proof” is an oxymoron of the highest order.
oxymoron /ˌɒksɪˈmɔːrɒn/
noun
a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g. faith unfaithful kept him falsely true).
“Belief” – and that’s precisely what subjective proof is – is not the same thing as objective proof.
subjective /səbˈdʒɛktɪv/
adjective
1: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions:
objective /əbˈdʒɛktɪv/
adjective
1: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts:
Feelings, tastes or opinions need not be rational or based in fact. They are proof of nothing other than a person’s feelings, tastes or opinions. E=mc^2 isn’t a valid equation because Einstein felt it was “a good idea”. It’s a valid equation because empirical testing i.e. objective proof has proved time and again that it is a valid statement about physics.
The only person you’re fooling here is yourself. And we have a word for that too.
delusion /dɪˈl(j)uːʒ(ə)n/
noun
an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder:
The objective scientific reality of the situation is that homosexuality and homosexual pair bonding are both real and natural. The rational legal arguments counter to your position it is legal and just discriminate against homosexuals has been demolished (many times now). Yet you retain your idiosyncratic belief that homosexuality is a choice, that homosexuals are incapable of pair bonding and that it would be just and legal to discriminate against them based on your religious definition of marriage.
As Emperor Joseph II said in the film “Amadeus”, “Well, there it is.”
Gene H wrote: “The objective scientific reality of the situation is that homosexuality and homosexual pair bonding are both real and natural. … Yet you retain your idiosyncratic belief that homosexuality is a choice, that homosexuals are incapable of pair bonding and that it would be just and legal to discriminate against them based on your religious definition of marriage.”
In this one paragraph, you prove that you have almost no understanding of my position. You make no effort to understand anything I say, even though I try very hard to take the time to communicate with you.
I agree that homosexuality and homosexual pair bonding is real, but not that it is natural or in accordance with natural law. I do not have the belief that homosexuality is “a choice,” but rather that it develops through a whole series of factors, such as genetic inheritance of behavioral traits, environment both during gestation and during childhood, sometimes environment long after childhood, and CHOICES (not a choice) that a person makes regarding how they think and what they do in terms of their sexuality. I also believe sexuality of all forms becomes very ingrained and extremely difficult to change, which is why I think children should be protected from homosexual propaganda as well as all forms of sexual propaganda.
I have never said that homosexuals are incapable of pair bonding. Rather, my position is that their pair bond is not identical to male/female pair bonding due to biological and considerations based in nature and natural law. Therefore, my position is that the two types of pair bonds being considered, Same Sex Unions (SSU) & Opposite Sex Unions (OSU) should be treated as distinct by the law. I don’t care even if you call it SSU marriage and OSU marriage, but the laws created before SSU was even thought about should not be hijacked by changing the legal definition of marriage to strip it of its meaning in regards to gender diversity and its complementary role in OS pair bonding, as well as the role it plays in the creation of children and a family structure to raise those children.
Lastly, I am a theist and not religious. I realize that does not fit into the way you stereotype your world, but the point is that I do not embrace a dogma or creed that would forbid me from changing my perspective. Your rational arguments to correct me have failed because I find them illogical and based primarily in bigotry against religion. You have to stereotype me as religious just so your mind feels comfortable in discounting anything I say. It is an effect caused by the plethora of propaganda you subject your mind to on a daily basis. You accuse me of discrimination without ever recognizing your own discrimination against religion.
For what it is worth, I recognize that my theism affects how I interpret data, but that is the way the mind works. Based upon careful study and analysis, I cannot escape the conclusion of a Creator. I am in the company of Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton in this regard. I’m not saying that I am anywhere near as bright as these men, but I consider it good company to be in. Therefore, until proven otherwise, I accept that premise of theism. What you do not realize is that you are embracing the philosophy of positivism which biases you so that you cannot consider any ideas that do not originate according to that premise, or that would in any way serve to show that premise is too narrow and faulty.
Lastly, I do not accept the philosophy of Tony which was better articulated by John Stuart Mill, that the individual ought to be free to do as he wishes unless he harms others. While I do not advocate making homosexuality illegal, I think steps should be taken to discourage it based upon natural law. This position is motivated by love for homosexuals. See the following article for some information about the harm that homosexuals suffer.
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/mental_ill.htm
While most people would like to think that all the problems homosexual behavior causes would magically vanish if we just all expressed our approval of homosexuality, I think otherwise based upon numerous studies and observations of homosexuals.
davidm,
That’s right…REFUSE to give specific answers because you say I’ve mocked you. That’s a way to avoid responding to my direct questions. If you’re not a young Earth creationist, what are you? Maybe you can provide us with a “ballpark” answer about the age of the Earth??? We can forgo your plethora of evidence for now.
Elaine M wrote: “That’s a way to avoid responding to my direct questions. If you’re not a young Earth creationist, what are you? Maybe you can provide us with a “ballpark” answer about the age of the Earth?”
Actually, I have answered you about this, but you failed to see it and you continue to fail to see it. You have still failed to answer my question about proving the lie told by NAS concerning the testability of creationist theories.
I know that throwing out a number for you will not be the end of it. You seem upset that you are running out of things to make fun of me about. I choose to leave you in ignorance.
Gene, “I need to borrow Vincent’s phone so I can call over to a plane where Hugh isn’t dead. … Crappy mono-planar phone.”
***
LoL, There isn’t an app for that? I’m sure Apple is working on it.
Everett dead? Pshaw, as long as there are sleep deprived blawg-junkies playing thought games about the multiverse at odd hours of the morning Hugh Everett lives!
LK,
I just got off the phone with Max. He’s thrilled. I’d call Hugh but I need to borrow Vincent’s phone so I can call over to a plane where Hugh isn’t dead. My phone is on the Copenhagen plan.
Crappy mono-planar phone. 😛
(Disclaimer: No theoretical physicists were actually used in the construction of this joke.)
What Elaine said. Alive and well indeed.
“race baiters”?
The only thing a fish has to do to avoid being caught is to not take the bait. But they just can’t help themselves.
Vincent: “Elaine M., you obviously got your facts from media, not from the trial. I watched the testimony on the tube and Zimmerman was not following Martin and did not confront him. ”
***
Not following Martin?
OMG where is Gene H? Gene! Gene! I think we have actually found someone from one of those alternate universes that we have discussed that has managed to transition into this one. The (heretofore hypothetical) Multiverse is real, permeable and traversal! Max Tegmark and Hugh Everett are going to be sooooo happy to hear about this. ROFLMAO
OMG, the only people being brought out into the light are the race baiters who are having fits about the whole White Liberal Guilt Trip thingy not working. Which is a good thing. It has gone on far too long. And the mental disconnect is pretty blatant or people never would have thought they could get away with convincing people that self-defense is inherently racist.
Far better if the author had written, “But I would likewise have rejected in 1968 any suggestion that almost fifty years thence RACE-BAITING would still permeate American society.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
OhNo, I miss Mike A when he doesn’t regularly comment because I like his writing and I sincerely apologize for crediting his thread to someone else. Sorry Mike A.
Mike, you brought them out of the dark and they are now exposed. I’ve got one as a fb friend that will be defriended before the day is done.
Gene,
David still refuses to say how old he believes the Earth is…and if he believes all the creatures who live on it were created in less than a week.
Elaine M wrote: “David still refuses to say how old he believes the Earth is…and if he believes all the creatures who live on it were created in less than a week.”
I don’t think “refuses” is the right verb here. I already told you that I am not a young earth creationist. Beyond that, well, I am hesitant to engage you in this topic because you have demonstrated excessive mockery toward me in your dialogue. This forum is not suitable for the plethora of evidence needed to overturn bias created by a long held paradigm. You will just have to be patient and wait for my book, “A Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design.”
“Beyond that, well, I am hesitant to engage you in this topic because you have demonstrated excessive mockery toward me in your dialogue. This forum is not suitable for the plethora of evidence needed to overturn bias created by a long held paradigm. You will just have to be patient and wait for my book, “A Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design.”
DavidM,
I have certainly called you many things but have always credited the fact of your intelligence. You refuse to answer Elaine, not because she has mocked you, but because your whole technique here is one of dis-ingenuousness. Your antediluvian views are rather easy to extract from the reasonable sounding rhetoric you surround them with to disguise where you come from intellectually. You are what I call a “moderate bigot.” This does not mean that your views are moderate when it comes to bigotry, only that you are smart enough to couch them in terms of moderation. One element of this technique that has classically been used by Conservatives since Goldwater lost his election is to turn around the charges of bigotry upon those who accuse you of bias. Thus the people who are being mistreated because of their skin color, or sexual leanings, become the “bigots” for protesting the prejudice being done to them. It is a clever tactic, yet easy to discern and fundamentally dishonest. But hey…….have a wonderful day, Pal and I mean that with all due respect.
davidm,
If it walks like a duck…
Said the guy who uses a religious definition of marriage instead of a legal definition to attempt to make legal arguments justifying discrimination and who thinks “subjective proof” is a real thing.
🙄
Gene H wrote: “Said the guy who uses a religious definition of marriage instead of a legal definition to attempt to make legal arguments justifying discrimination and who thinks “subjective proof” is a real thing.”
First, I gave you my sources for defining marriage, which are legal sources (Maynard v. Hill, Skinner v. Oklahoma, and Loving v. Virginia). So you are in denial.
Second, everybody discriminates. We all make distinctions where warranted. Some of us are just honest about it while others live in denial. Nevertheless, there is a form of discrimination we should avoid — unjust and prejudicial discrimination. Avoiding it is only feasible when we properly define the terms.
You actually express religious discrimination in this short post that you make. This is the bad kind of discrimination, like racial discrimination, where someone makes unjust prejudicial distinctions to denigrate religion. Positivists (which is what you are) typically have this problem of religious discrimination. It is an artifact of their worldview about how knowledge is obtained.
Third, subjective proof is a real thing, despite your constant denial. Just because you have never experienced it does not make it less real for others who have. You are like a blind man scoffing at people who claim they can see.
Well, I would like to see if good marching skills are still alive! But, I have the guitar chords I worked out if anybody want to do it acoustically, instead of with bugles and drums.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
lottakatz,
As we can clearly see–racism is still alive in this country.
I like bread & butter. You like toast & jam. Is that racist?
Elaine M wrote: “As we can clearly see–racism is still alive in this country.”
It depends on how you define racism. The way you define it, there will always be racism. And that’s a good thing. It means we’re not stupid.
MikeS, WoW, this thread has become a meta Mecca for some of your commenters! So many of the postings are the best example for illustrating your point you could not have hoped for better illustrations, though “Once Removed” may have been a stretch. Well done, I’m totally impressed, that’s trolling (in the classic fishing sense) of a high order. 🙂
Lk,
Mike Appleton wrote this, blog, but I totally agree with his point of view. I agree with yours as well that we couldn’t have had better examples of what Mike has written about than some of those who have made comments.
Elaine M., you obviously got your facts from media, not from the trial. I watched the testimony on the tube and Zimmerman was not following Martin and did not confront him. The evidence was that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle to keep Martin within sight so that when the police arrived, Martin could be located. Martin came out of a poorly lit passageway and confronted Zimmerman saying, “You’re going to die tonight”.
A young boy is dead because he started a fight. The Skittles and ice tea are irrelevant.
If Martin had done anything other than throw a punch (walk away, tell Zimmerman to go to hell, do nothing, call the police himself if he felt threatened), he would be alive today. Even if Martin felt compelled to deck Zimmerman out of some misplaced vision of macho, if he had walked away after Zimmerman fell to the ground, Martin would be alive today. If you start a fight, you are subject to consequences.
Did someone pee in Spidell’s cornflakes? It’s either that, somebody got his goat or he’s gay ( not that there’s anything wrong with that as Jerry Seinfeld used to say ).
Marselak,
I simply detest ignorant bigotry like that which you peddle.