You are here: Home / Archives for Derryck Green

Emotional Embrace Of Same-Sex Marriage

March 23, 2013 by 9 Comments

obama gay marriage sc Emotional Embrace Of Same Sex Marriage

This has been another eventful month regarding the national conversation surrounding same-sex marriage (SSM).  Last week, Ohio senator Rob Portman had a “change of heart,” coming out in support of SSM as a result of his son’s recent confession of being gay.

This week, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and famed, former mega-pastor Rob Bell both came out in support of gay marriage. Clinton, preparing for a presidential run in 2016, justified her position by saying that “gay rights are human rights” and adding “I believe America is at its best when we champion the freedom and dignity of every human being.” For her, this includes marriage.

Bell, who is in the midst of his book tour said on Sunday at San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral: “I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it’s a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man. I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs — I think this is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are.”

And let’s not forget the Justice Department’s amicus curia brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8, California’s ban on SSM.

Though I don’t support SSM, I think that SSM advocates will see the legal affirmation of the gay lifestyle, and marriage will be redefined. I believe this because the case against SSM hasn’t been made consistently enough to turn the tide.

In all the back and forth on the topic, there are several issues that seem to be purposely overlooked and not discussed when the topic is raised.

At the outset, most agree that the topic of SSM is an emotional one.  It’s emotional for those who happen to be gay and who desire to be married.  It’s emotional for those who have friends or loved ones who are gay and want them to be “accepted”- part of that acceptance is having the opportunity to be married.  It’s also emotional for those who, though they may have friends and loved ones who are gay, still hold to the understanding that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  Further still, it’s emotional for those who struggle to remain faithful to their religious worldview that impacts their understanding of marriage.

It’s precisely because of emotionalism that reason hasn’t prevailed.

The one issue that’s repeatedly raised when discussing SSM is the notion of “rights.” Advocates of SSM argue that marriage is a basic “right” that is denied to gays and, as such, is illegal.  Therefore, in the interest of fairness, marriage (by law) should be extended to gays in the same way that it is extended to non-gays.

This sounds convincing.  To deny a basic right to one group of people while extending it to another group of people is wrong and discriminatory.  And if that’s what the law does, it should be rescinded.

But that isn’t what the law does.  First, marriage isn’t a “right.”  It’s a civil institution that all societies in history have used and have recognized as the best way to legitimize, protect, and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

Second, the law doesn’t deny basic “rights” to a particular group unfairly.  When the law defines and recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman, it doesn’t exclude any gay person from marrying. The law treats non-gay people the exact same way it treats gay people in regards to marriage: both are prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex.  This means that under the law, a gay person would have to marry the same way everyone else in society has to marry – someone of the opposite sex.  As it relates to all unmarried persons in America, the law is extended equally and doesn’t discriminate based upon sexual preference.

Furthermore, there is no “right” to marry- civil or otherwise- found in the Constitution.  Every single time a person or court claims the denial of the “right” to marry is “unconstitutional,” they’re lying.  The Constitution says exactly nothing about SSM.  When this claim is offered as a defense of SSM, as is currently being done before the Supreme Court, it’s legally unfounded.

Consequently, when gay advocates and gays assert that legal refusal to marry someone of the same sex is a denial of rights that exists for everyone else, it simply isn’t true.  What they’re actually claiming is a new “right” that doesn’t exist anywhere for anyone regardless of orientation- the right to marry someone of the same sex. The “right” for a person to marry someone of the same sex has been denied to everyone.

Another claim that’s continually offered is that people should be allowed to marry whom they love, especially if they’re consenting adults.  Unfortunately, this also isn’t credibly defensible, and here’s why.  Technically, gays can marry other gays.  These ceremonies happen all the time.  Numerous clergy members of varying religions are more than willing to perform these ceremonies.   The only thing that the newly married won’t receive is governmental and societal affirmation and recognition of being “married.”

But if SSM is legalized, how can that law be defended when society arbitrarily moves the discriminatory lines of separation, and how is it justified? If it’s okay for gays to marry other gays because of love and consent, why don’t we allow/legalize polygamy when the parties involved are in love and consenting? Why not aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same requirements of love and consent are present?  If it’s discrimination against gays, why wouldn’t it be discrimination against these other parties if SSM is legalized? And if it is discrimination, how is it justified in light of the qualifications that are used in favor of homosexual marriage?  If we’re to be intellectually honest, legalizing SSM means legalizing a number of other relationships based on the same criteria used for homosexual marriage.

In the end, the law doesn’t take into consideration love when defining marriage- and rightly so. If it did, the relationships above would have to be legalized, normalized, and accepted as equal.

Yet another claim SSM advocates use for legalizing SSM is to claim it’s a “civil rights issue.”  To equate the struggle of gays to selfishly redefine marriage with the struggles that black Americans underwent to gain civil rights undermines their argument because it trivializes the misery and misfortune blacks suffered through to gain the level of acceptance that exists today.  There are no “gay only” bathrooms, drinking faucets, or entrances; gays aren’t relegated to sitting in the back of the bus or forced to say “yes sir” and “no ma’am” to their non-gay equivalents.  There is no gay equivalent to Jim Crow laws; gays aren’t having fire hoses or dogs used on them merely because they’re gay – and thank God for that.  So the similarity falls short.

Rob Portman, Hillary Clinton, and Rob Bell have compassion for gays and rightly so.  But to radically redefine an institution that has existed for all of human history and sacrificing reason for sympathy- while forfeiting responsibility for the repercussions-is cowardly and transparent.

Photo credit: khalid Albaih (Creative Commons)

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , ,

The Real Truth About Blacks And Gun Violence

February 22, 2013 by 17 Comments

Gun SC The Real Truth About Blacks and Gun Violence

DeWayne Wickham recently penned a piece lamenting the number of black children killed as the result of gun violence.  During his reflection, he set the foundation for the need for more gun control by acknowledging the deaths of both Trayvon Martin, the Florida teenager killed by George Zimmerman, and Hadiya Pendleton, an innocent victim who was recently killed in a case of mistaken identity by gang members on the South Side of Chicago.

Though Wickham’s point that gun violence among black children being pandemic is well taken, he neglected to properly label the reasons for such violence.  He also doesn’t go far enough in detailing who’s responsible for this pandemic. Mr. Wickham did make mention of it, but almost in passing- that the overwhelming majority of the deaths of the black victims come at the hands of other blacks. That’s the first issue.

The death of Martin, though sad and unfortunate- especially for his family- does little to advance the case for increasing gun laws to reduce violence.  Martin was as much a victim of his bad judgment, and the profile set by the previous eight burglars, as he was of Zimmerman’s gun.

The Pendleton case, however, may provide cause.

When citing FBI statistics regarding the number of black deaths, Wickham didn’t note that the majority of those deaths came at the hands of other blacks.  Using the same FBI statistics cited by Wickham, of the 2,938 murder offenders in 2011, 1803 were black.

The total number of black murders regardless of age in 2011 was 2695. Of that number, 2447 were committed by blacks.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, of all homicides committed between 1980 and 2008, 47.4 percent of the victims were black while 52.5 percent of all offenders were black. Of all felony murders during the same time period, blacks accounted for 44.1 percent of those murdered while accounting for 59.9 percent of the offenders.  Blacks accounted for 56.9 percent of all gun homicides.

Any serious mention of protecting black children from violent crime has to include a sincere effort in assigning blame to the causes of crime, along with effective methods to reduce it.  Wickham uses a false argument to justify his blame for violent crime by condemning “those who want more prisons, not better schools…” He also blames Congress for kowtowing to the NRA.

This undermines his concern for black youth by appearing disingenuous. Who, specifically, wants more prisons and not better schools?  What specifically does the NRA have to do with black gang members on Chicago’s South Side who shot Pendleton with their illegally-obtained guns?

I don’t doubt Mr. Wickham’s sincerity regarding black youth.  But if the obligation to confront this problem belongs to “all of us” as he claims, then it’s our responsibility to point the finger directly at who and what is responsible.

First, some of the cities with the harshest gun laws also have the highest rates of black-on-black gun violence.  This is no coincidence.

Second, Wickham is right: America’s children need to be protected from gun violence, but not necessarily with more gun laws.  Restrictive gun laws punish only those who follow the law, not those who don’t.  This is precisely why we call lawbreakers criminals.  No matter how many (more) laws are created with the intention of reducing gun violence, criminals by definition will disregard these laws, knowing that their potential victims will be increasingly defenseless.

We should consistently and effectively prosecute lawbreakers with stiffer prison sentences, not constrain the law-abiding.

Third, and most importantly, Wickham makes absolutely no mention of the fact that the disproportionate numbers of gun violence that victimizes blacks, committed by other blacks, are from fatherless households.  That’s the second and most crucial issue.

Seventy percent of black children are born out of wedlock, and roughly 60 percent live in homes without fathers.  This sad reality should motivate state and federal governments as well as local communities- especially churches and other religious organizations- to encourage blacks to get and stay married. Children from households where a mother and father are present are less likely to engage in violent behavior, including gangs.

A number of social pathologies have been attributed to those who come from fatherless homes, including juvenile delinquency, youths in prison, youth drug use, high school dropouts, behavioral issues, and trouble dealing with authority.  Nowhere is this more prevalent than among black children.

Mr. Wickham and I agree that gun violence is a detriment to black youth; we simply disagree with whom and what receives blame.  If we want to reduce gun violence, especially in the inner cities, we have to change and redeem the cultural values that foster it.  This begins with recreating and redeeming the black family.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

The Obama Administration’s Religious “Exemption”

February 7, 2013 by 3 Comments

Obama Pope Birth Control SC The Obama Administrations Religious Exemption

Last week, the Obama administration tweaked the requirements for the contraception mandate on religious-based businesses and non-profit organizations.  The “compromise”- which still exempts houses of worship, churches, worship centers, and church associations – includes exemptions for religious non-profit organizations, Christian and Catholic colleges, universities, hospitals, and religious charities from directly paying for health insurance that covers contraceptives and “reproductive services.” These organizations, still being legally mandated to cover their employees, would have to find a third-party insurer that would offer the employees a plan that included contraception- at no cost to the enrollee.

The so-called accommodation didn’t go far enough.  Though religiously-affiliated colleges, hospitals, and non-profit organizations are exempt from directly paying for and providing contraceptive insurance plans, this exemption doesn’t cover the entrepreneurs and private business owners who own their own businesses large or small (such as Hobby Lobby) that hold religious objections to the mandate.  Though they are not religious organizations in and of themselves, many of these businesses are managed by people who are guided by religious principles.  Therefore, the “compromise”, while exempting churches and loosely religious non-profits, continues to infringe upon the moral conscience of thousands of business owners and their employees, preventing the freedom guaranteed in the Constitution to express their religious values and beliefs.

Furthermore, the contraceptive exemption that continues to affect church-based charities, colleges, and hospitals aren’t fully exempted based on the fact that they employ- and serve- a significant number of people who may not share the same faith as the institution, even though it’s a religious organization.  That’s right.

Defined by the IRS, a church organization desires to advocate and instill religious values as its purpose or mission; it primarily employs people who share its religious principles and primarily serves people who share its religious tenets. Religious-based non-profits, on the other hand, may have a mission statement steeped in religious values and principles; but because it employs and serves people who may not share the same religious values, the organization doesn’t qualify.  And neither do the private for-profit businesses that, again, aren’t religious institutions.

This reeks of a litmus test that defines “religious” in the way(s) that suits the government’s ideological predispositions.  It’s also religious discrimination.  For the government, “religious” is based upon the people the religious institution employs and services, not the internal character or mission of the organization that does the charitable servicing.  So if those who receive charity, help, or employment agree with the religious-based mission of the business, then it qualifies as religious; if those who receive help, charity, or employment don’t happen to share the same religious viewpoints as the organization’s mission, then it doesn’t qualify as religious. No good.

There’s more that could qualify as religious discrimination. Remember, the religious-affiliated institution that is now exempt from directly purchasing a contraceptive insurance plan is still mandated to provide separate coverage for their employees that offers the contraceptive services- this is done through another insurance provider.  Remember still, it’s provided at no cost to the enrollee- zero co-pay.  The problem with this scenario is that there’s no legal injunction provided that would prevent the exponential cost-increase of premiums and/or co-pays of the non-contraceptive plan (which includes the co-pay) in relation to the contraceptive plan.  This potential cost-increase will be considered religious discrimination by those who have opted out.

Further, the potential cost-increase of the non-contraceptive plan could be used to subsidize those plans that provide contraception and reproductive services- the very same behaviors that some employers/employees are morally opposed to and which prompted the exemption in the first place.

This is what I happen to call a moral “glitch” within the Obama administration.  This is not unlike the “glitch” regarding the ironically and erroneously-named Affordable Care Act, which inadvertently disqualified thousands of poor American families (up to 7 million people) from affording employer-provided health insurance. At the same time, these poor families also won’t qualify for government assistance to purchase health coverage on their own. Thus, to accommodate for this “glitch”, these families won’t be subjected to the penalty- tax- by the IRS for not purchasing health insurance. But they will still have access to health care.

This is exactly what happens when, as Nancy Pelosi said, “[we] have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” rather than reading the bill, in its entirety, prior to its passage.

Though this “exemption” may be one very small step in the right direction, it still discriminates against the religious sensibilities of millions of Americans.  Nothing short of a full repeal of Obamacare will do.

The future of American healthcare, personal freedom, and religious liberty all depend on it.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Obama, Gun Violence, And His Transparent Pursuit Of Guns

January 24, 2013 by 3 Comments

Angry Obama SC Obama, Gun Violence, and His Transparent Pursuit of Guns

Last week, Vice President Joe Biden gave a feigned and somber introduction to a news conference where the president pontificated and released his response to “senseless gun violence,” setting the tone for the introduction of twenty-three gun proposal measures, including nineteen executive orders that he believes will be beneficial in reducing gun violence.

I think most Americans wholeheartedly agree that what happened in Aurora, Colorado and Newtown, Connecticut- though statistically random- was tragic nonetheless. The country was stunned as it heard the reports of innocent and defenseless people killed by James Holmes while attempting to enjoy a recreational night at a movie theater in Colorado.  If that wasn’t bad enough, the country was particularly grief-stricken when confronted with the painful aftermath of twenty children, literally the innocent of the innocent, gunned down by Adam Lanza at a school in Connecticut.

Though tragic as these incidents were, the president’s proposals during his showroom news conference will do little to prevent another Aurora or Newtown.

In the Aurora shooting, James Holmes purchased his guns and ammunition legally (which were semi-automatic, non-military rifles).  Furthermore, in committing his terror, Holmes may have specifically chosen the theater he did because it was one that explicitly markets itself as a “gun free zone,” meaning he may have known before he committed his evil acts that he would have little to no defensive opposition, thus allowing him to maximize his damage.

In Newtown, Adam Lanza illegally obtained the guns used in the killings from his mother (who had purchased them legally) after killing her.  In addition to Lanza using stolen guns that weren’t his, he had a history of mental illness that many argue contributed to and motivated his passion to kill his mother along with the teachers and students at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

So at base level, the news conference was nothing more than smoke and mirrors, attempting to look busy while doing nothing. Or as liberals love to have it, receiving credit for their intentions rather than the results of their intentions.

But there are other things more disturbing about the president’s news conference.

First, that Barack Obama would purposely use children as tools for emotional and political manipulation and as shields to avert criticism of his proposed agenda is absolutely cowardly as it is shameful.  If his children are off limits and can’t be used for politics, America’s children should be off limits for the same reasons as well.

Second, the fact that the president, Joe Biden and other politicians who advocate “sweeping gun control laws” continue to use Sandy Hook and Aurora as a pedestal to justify their position is breathtaking and immoral. As mentioned above, the president’s proposals had they been implemented would have done little or nothing to avert those tragedies.  More importantly and equally as telling, the President, Joe Biden, nor Senator Dianne Feinstein (who herself has a conceal and carry permit) haven’t used the crime statistics of Oakland (over 130 murders, a five year high) or the murder rate of the president’s hometown of Chicago (which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country), which tallied 532 murders in addition to 2,670 people shot in 2012 (based on statistics compiled by the website “Crime in Chicago“), as motivation to take serious steps at reducing gun violence.

Though the President did mention “the inner-city streets of Chicago” toward the end of the press conference, he has been noticeably silent regarding the increasing and brazen violence on Chicago’s streets since he’s been president, where law-abiding citizens have been living in fear for some time.

This lack of acknowledgement is telling.  What it says is that in the liberal mind, white lives taken at the hands of criminals using guns in Aurora, Newtown, on the campus of Virginia Tech, and in Oregon have more worth inherently- but more importantly, for gun-grabbing Democrats, politically- than the lives lost in the inner cities of America where large concentrations of minorities live.

It’s the same mentality that drove the circus surrounding the Trayvon Martin murder.  The president- aided and abetted by the media and in conjunction with political hacks and race pimps like Al $harpton and Je$$e Jack$on- racially trivialized the death of Martin and manipulated the emotions of his family and their supporters regarding the circumstances surrounding Martin’s death.  The attention paid to this incident- sad as it was and prior to knowing all the facts- was out of proportion to the amount in which blacks are victims of violent crimes by white suspects.

It was noted at the time that there was a noticeable lack of attention and coverage by the President, the media, and race pimps alike regarding the insanely high murder rate of blacks who are the victims of other blacks.  This led many people (but not enough) to the conclusion that the lives of black victims at the hands of other blacks weren’t as inherently valuable as those black lives taken at the hands of white suspects.  This conclusion was a transparent indicator that politics is what mattered most.

The same is absolutely true here.  Twelve people were killed in Aurora, and twenty-seven people were killed in Newtown.  While tragic, 532 were killed in Chicago. Mass murder, though tragic and shocking, is rare; gang violence is much more frequent and prevalent.  If the President and his sycophants truly cared about reducing gun violence, dangerous environments like that found in Chicago would have taken precedence and motivated him to executive action some time ago.

This charade isn’t about reducing gun violence whatsoever.  It’s about government control and the reduction of the liberty of law-abiding Americans, period.  And in attempting to do so, President Obama has become the most successful gun salesman in American history.

Photo credit: SS&SS (Creative Commons)

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,