Monday, August 09, 2004


Repeating History

GOP Faces Uphill Battle for Black Vote

George Bush made a good point a few weeks ago when he addressed the Urban League. He asked the audience if it was in their best interests to have the black community essentially represented by only one party. Of course that's not a good idea, but perhaps the whole debate of excluding gays from the constitution gently reminds the black community that it was the Republicans who opposed fully incorporating blacks in American civic society by their opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact the Republican party remains the dominate party in the South because of Democratic support for Civil Rights. Who can blame the African American Community for turning a jaundiced eye to the overatures of the GOP when they are using the same fear and predjudices to get votes as they did in the 1960s. Not me.,2933,128298,00.htmll


How amazing is this posting's factual inaccuracy!

Notice the vote break-down (For / Against)
H.R. 7152 May 10, 1964
House R: 136 / 34 (80% in favor)
House D: 152 / 96 (61.3% in favor)
"Clean Bill" version of H.R. 7152 in Senate
Senate R: 27 / 6 (81.8% in favor)
Senate D: 46 / 21 (68.7% in favor)

The fact of the matter is simply this: The REPUBLICANS were more substantial supporters of civil rights than were the Democrats. The problem for the GOP's relationship with the black community came when Goldwater attempted to win the White House by exploiting the strong division within the Democratic party. So far as I know, the Republicans never called for denying civil rights to any ethnic group, but did support the idea that this was a "state's rights" issue. That was incorrect, both legally and politically, but if somebody ever says that the Republicans did not support the Civil Rights Act of 64, they're either ignorant or lying. Proportionately, the Republicans were much stronger supporters of the act than were the Dems.

The uphill battle is mostly against a press-corp that is dedicated to spreading any lie necessary to advance the Dem cause, and once you're labled a "racist" and you happen to be white, you need to spend the rest of your time arguing that you're not and you can't get to the real issues. The Media knows this and will play it up to the extent necessary to provide as much advantage for the Dems as they can.

Your posting presupposes that the plight of black Americans and homosexuals is sufficiently similar to be interchangeable. From everything I've seen, the black community has taken umbrage to the attempts to equate the two. Finally, you have yet to provide a constitutional analysis that requires gays to be treated as a suspect class. I won't hold my breath for that argument because the Supreme Court has strongly rejected it. You can make a reasonable argument that it's not a significant government interest to prefer traditional marriages over same-sex ones, but we're not talking about "civil rights."

C'mon, lawyer, let's see some legal acumen! Make a good case for your argument other than just sticking with rumors and folk-lore which are demonstrably false. Either do that, or pick a side supported by law. If you want to argue for a change in the law on principle, fine, but don't accuse those who don't want to change the law of Constitutional violations. If you want the change, you should bear the burden of persuading the population that your proposed change is better than the current law.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?