Fifty Years, And Still Dreaming

August 28, 1963 was a turning point in American history.  A speech given by an Alabama preacher turned activist, eloquently articulated the hopes and dreams of millions of Americans. That, 'my little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color or their skin, but by the content of their character'.

Over the years, I have heard a number of different stories of how that iconic speech came about.  Some say that Dr. King's prepared remarks had blown away from the podium in the afternoon wind.  Others claim that a woman in the front of the crowd shouted, "Tell them about the dream", referring to a sermon given in Detroit earlier in the year.  One thing is certain:  The majority of King's sixteen minutes on stage were ad-libbed.




On the surface, it may appear that in 50 years, King's dream has been realized.  But, look closer.

When authorities are faced with the necessity of listing an offense as a "hate crime", we are still dreaming.  When politicians rush through so-called "voter ID laws", in order to make voting more difficult for minority voters, we are still dreaming.  When African-Americans make up only 13% of the general population, but account for 40% of our nation's prison population, we are still dreaming.

So long as the United States has over 1,000 active hate groups, our dream will not come true.  So long as political pundits and commentators are able to make a living, shamelessly race baiting and fear mongering, our dream will never come true.  So long as police are given authority to "stop and frisk" a person, simply for the crime of looking suspicious not being white, we are still dreaming.

It's difficult not to take a "glass half empty" look at civil rights and race relations.  Yes, in 50 years, we have taken many steps forward.  But, at times, it's almost as if we've taken twice as many back.

NOM To Board Of Directors: "Drive A Wedge Between Gays And Blacks"

Some background:  NOM (the National Organization for Marriage) was recently sued in Maine for violating campaign finance laws.  NOM contended that they were not a political organization, and, as such, were not required to disclose campaign and financial information.  The First Circuit Court disagreed.

NOM appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case yesterday afternoon.  When that happened, NOM was legally required to make certain information public, such as reports to their board of directors.

The sixteen pages released yesterday show evidence of the organization's mission to pit African-Americans, Latinos, and the LGBT community against each other.  All the while, straight white bigots just sit back and watch it all unfold.  On page 13 of the 2008-2009 report to their board of directors, under a heading called "Not a Civil Right Project", it states the following:

"The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks - two key Democratic constituencies.  Find, energize, equip and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots.  No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party."

JAZZ HANDS...

Immediately upon reading this, Ken Hutcherson came to mind.   The vehemently anti-gay pastor from Kirkland, Washington, was one of the most vocal opponents to marriage equality in Washington state.  During one debate on the issue, he even went so far as to say that marriage equality would lead to legalized horse fucking.

"If this law is passed, what is going to happen? Now ask your guests in the studio. Do they believe that if they change the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman, what is going to stop two men one woman, two women one man, one man against a horse, one many with a boy, one man with anything?"

 Also on page 13 of the report, is their strategy regarding the Latino community.  It involves using Spanish language ads to convince listeners that their "assimilation" into American culture is not complete, unless they're against marriage equality.

"Will the process of assimilation to the dominant Anglo culture lead Hispanics to abandon traditional family values? We must interrupt this process of assimilation by making support for marriage a key badge of Latino identity - a symbol of resistance to inappropriate assimilation."

That's right folks...You're not really an American, unless you're an intolerant bigot.  In case you didn't know, these three people are at the forefront of American culture.  They're trendsetters.

Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council and NOM's Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown

Another interesting tidbit from the report is that it confirms, once and for all, the partnership between NOM and the Mormon church.  Under the section "Donor Protection Litigation", it points out the steps that NOM has taken to support (and publicly shield) the LDS establishment from protests and media attention brought upon them in the wake of Prop 8.

There is also a section called "Sideswiping Obama".  The mission of this "project" is especially telling:

"Expose Obama as a social radical.  Develop side issues to weaken pro-gay marriage political leaders and parties and develop an activist base of socially conservative and Christian voters.  Raise such issues as pornography, protection of children, and the need to oppose all efforts to weaken religious liberty at a federal level."

Does this sound familiar to anyone?  Calling Mr. Santorum.

Rick Santorum has publicly vowed to ban the distribution of "hardcore" pornography on the internet, by mail, and in stores.  He has claimed that "the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families".  He also incorrectly attests that pornography causes "profound brain changes" and leads to violence against women, statements which no evidence has not shown.


Could the National Organization for Marriage have Rick Santorum in their pocket?  He is, possibly, the most vocal politician today in regards to contraception use being against our "religious freedoms".  


The notions presented in yesterday's documents are disturbing, to say the least.  Even more unsettling is the fact that many of this country's most powerful individuals support the ideologies of this disgusting organization.