Skip to main content

Originally published on June 18, 2009 by Yo Mama For Obama

This post will be a continuation of my last one, dealing with the people’s insurgency in Iran and the fight for equal rights here in America.

No surprise: it is being reported that Ayatollah Khamenei’s rival Mullah, Rafsanjani, will be supporting the massive protest in Iran today.  Quite frankly, this election dispute is a contest, a personal power struggle, between the two Ayatollahs.  Whether we have Ahmadinejad or Mousavi as figurehead Presidents is almost immaterial.  Their ideology and politics are essentially the same, although Ahmadinejad’s incendiary fervor is definitely off the deep end.  Their underlying beliefs, both national and international, are identical.  It is the Mullahs who rule Iran.  The people’s protests must move from election fraud to throwing out the corrupt clerics who rule Iran.

Dan Rather was on MSNBC yesterday, and he was not very optimistic about the outcome of this Iran uprising.  He said that similar to this uprising, the Czech revolt of 1956, the Chinese attempt at protest in Tiananmen Square in 1989 and the attempted battle for freedom in Burma in 2007 were all crushed by their respective governments.  Included in these assaults on the protesters were serious, and successful, attempts to quash any media reports of the protests plus the government’s retaliatory responses.  True: in 1956, we did not have the internet, cell phones or Twitter.  Basically the same holds true for 1989.  Nonetheless, the media were thrown out of those countries and thus any reports of the events were not forthcoming.  So is Iran trying to play that same game today.  Not only have reporters been warned off covering the disputed elections, but Iran has cut off most access to the internet and cell phones.  But long live Twitter: they can not shut off that service.  Not yet.  Our very own State Department has requested, and been granted, that Twitter defer their shutdown for maintenance scheduled for this week so that the world can have some access to the events in Iran.  As Hillary Clinton said recently, and I paraphrase,  "I don’t know a Twitter from a Tweeter, but Twitter has been a window to the world as to what is going on in Iran."  In the New York Times today, Op-Ed contributor, Nicholas Kristof equates "tweets" as the bullets of modern warfare.

This communications crackdown IS an assault on one of the most fundamental rights every person in the world has: freedom of,  and access to, information.  What astounds me is the fact that the ruling entity in Iran has no second thoughts whatsoever about their election tactics and harsh and murderous actions following that election.  What does bother them, however, are the media reports that show their despicable stance on crooked elections and violence to subdue that justified outrage.  It is NOT the real substance of their policies that offends them, but the resulting publicity that will "give them a bad name".  Hah!  With their restrictive, prejudicial policies they have given themselves their own bad name.

At any rate, Dan Rather believes that this uprising in Iran will be no more successful than those in Czechoslovakia, China or Burma.  I disagree.  A successful ending to these events in Iran will have to include a rebellion against the real ruler, i.e. the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah.  This will be no easy feat.  The first crack, in the form of corrupt elections, has appeared.  However, how this uprising will end is dependent on the strength and fortitude of the people coupled with the ability for the lines of global communication to remain open.  Time will tell.

The outcome of gay Americans in their fight for equal rights is also dependent on how strong public opinion is in support of those rights.  President Obama has supported DOMA in the past.  This Defense of Marriage Act is, in reality, a conservative backlash argument, a sham, against equal gender rights disguised as an issue of  states rights versus federal law.  DOMA needs to be repealed and yesterday is not soon enough. Unfortunately, even President Obama has been hiding behind this states’ rights argument.  Just like in Iran, we are not dealing with the basic substance of same sex marriage rights.  Instead, we are trying to prohibit equal rights by espousing a states’ rights stance.  People against gay marriage are twisting words, citing irrelevant political ideology, all in the hopes of getting the same end result —– no gay marriage.   That is my own personal take on this issue of same sex marriage.

Just like in Iran, this clamp down in America will not work.  Our legislators and people of all parties can use whatever semantics they create to try and fool us out of our Constitutional rights.  In the long run, it will not prevent freedom from winning the day.  President Obama made a start yesterday by signing an executive order giving same sex partners of federal workers some extended benefits.  This is the same "crack" in the system, the same first foot-in-the-door, in our fight for gay rights as was the public outcry to the election fraud in Iran.  But much more has to happen before the reality of true freedom and equality becomes a reality here and in Iran.

The following is a brief, but succinct editorial from the New York Times on President Obama’s actions yesterday:

We shall watch as both of these stories unfold.  Do not give me the unadulterated falsehood which the GOP espouse: the world needs democracy.  This is just a placebo fix, meaningless garbage and just another corner to hide in.  Democracy is rife with inconsistencies and twisted semantics.  The rights that are being fought for in Iran and America go much, much deeper than democracy; they are every human being’s absolute entitlements.

The cracks in our world are there.  They have surfaced.  Can these cracks expand to allow the people those rights with which they were born?  We will be vigilant in our watch, and as long as we can maintain the free transmission of information and ideas, we still have the chance for success.

Originally posted to yomamaforobama on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 08:51 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  this is my understanding of President Obama's (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skrekk, GlowNZ, Hawkjt


    We oppose this decision by President Obama to offer benefits to same sex partners of federal employees," said Peter Sprigg. "We feel that it violates at least the spirit, if not the letter, of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act."

    President Obama said the limited benefits he is offering now are not specifically mentioned in the act.  And he said he would like to see the law repealed.

    "I believe it is discriminatory," said Mr. Obama. "I believe it interferes with state's rights. And we will work with congress to overturn it."

    The president has long called for the demise of the Defense of Marriage Act.  Although he is not a supporter of gay marriage, Mr. Obama has said he favors civil unions for homosexual couples with comparable rights and benefits.

    The actions taken by the Justice Department are different from his stated preference.  The Justice Department is separate from the President's office.

    "I aint scared of Al Quaeda, I'm scared of Al Cracker"-Chris Rock...

    by vmm918 on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 08:59:33 AM PDT

  •  I was wondering how long it would take (0+ / 0-)

    for someone to have a diary that had both iran and gay rights in it.

    by GlowNZ on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 09:06:22 AM PDT

  •  Gay Rights (0+ / 0-)

    In the Us, there are no gay rights. There are no black rights.

    There are individual rights.

    Read the Constitution. Read the language of the 14th Amendment:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    And the 15th

    Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

    This is a nation of laws. It is this legal foundation upon which homosexual are due their eqaulity.  When you talk of gay rights, not only are you incorrect and baseless doing so, you also create the incorrect and easily pilloried idea that gays and lesbians are due some kind of special consideration.

    When that is the farthest from the truth.

    •  rights (0+ / 0-)

      Rights only become an issue, in need of definition, when they are denied.  Thus, we DO have black rights, gay rights, etc.
      Quote all the laws you want;  when and if you are ever denied YOUR rights, I'm sure we'll hear from you.
      Yo Mama

      •  Oh really (0+ / 0-)

        You have special black rights?  

        Name one.

        •  Not special rights. (0+ / 0-)

          Rights that everyone else has under the law, but have been historically denied to these groups.  That is what is meant by terms like "gay rights".

          •  I understand what is meant by the term (0+ / 0-)

            And I argued above it not only has no legal basis, which is important because this is a nation of laws, but is open up the charge of gays demanding special consideration.

            Which is the farthest thing from the truth.

            Its equal rights, not gay rights.  There are no gay rights.  Its sloppy and poor marketing.

            We will win the battle for equality before the law.  This is a nation of laws.  The way that marginalized individual have secured their Constitutionally protected liberties has been within the rules of that system.  Affirming gay rights is not within that system.  It is an unconstitutional argument, and will fail.

            I would also think that you would recognize the extreme irony of demanding rights, and protection before the law, without a greater appreciation for what the Rule of Law really means.

        •  "Special rights" are the rights... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ...that so-called first-class citizens reserve for themselves.

          •  And that is where we disagree (0+ / 0-)

            I see our system as being the mechanism by which marginalized and second-class citizens  have been able to secure equality before the law, which in turn, protects their civil liberties.

            And the key thing here is: that is the position of our Party, that is the position of the vast majority of America.

            And that is the position that will roll back DADT, repeal DOMA and end discrimination against homosexuality.

            This is a nation of laws.  That is a good thing. For with out laws, you have either tyranny or the mob.

            And we will overcome.

            •  I'm a transsexual woman. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Where is my equality before the law?

              •  I don't know that one (0+ / 0-)

                I know in WA state just passed some laws expanding equal protection for homosexuals and, if memory serves, transgender people as well.  And though I will not stop until we have full protection, and  due process and all that jazz for all Americans, that just makes my point:

                Cynics view the law as upholding the social prejudice against discriminated and oppressed minorities. But the actual history of the struggle for liberty shows that it is through the law that you will get your equal protection.  It is through the law that the societal and cultural prejudice that you experience and suffer from  will be ended.  

                •  It is through the law... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  ...that we will get equal rights...and it will be after I am deceased.

                  You may not like it to be framed as "equal rights for transgendered people," but the relity is that if we don't talk about equal rights for transgendered people, transgendered people will never get that equality.

                  So what you are saying rings so very, very hollow.

                  •  i don't think so (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't know how old you are, but young people (under 30) just don't care about gay/straight.

                    In a good way.

                    Something like over 2/3 just don't care.  [I don't know the attitudes on transsexual)

                    Now, to be fair, we've been talking about slogans, and Gay Right is a good slogan. But I don't like it, for the reasons I wrote above.

                    I like "Equal Rights."  I think its legally correct, and just as importantly, every American can empathize with it.  Or maybe I should say all decent Americans can identify with the struggle for equality, and thus its not "your" struggle for equality, its a not a trangender thing.

                    Its an American thing.

                    And that is the path the victory.  Its MLK's strategy, and it worked.

  •  I read some place within the past day or two (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shaviv, NoVa Boy

    that Ahmadinejad had just said that the people in the West supporting his opponents are perverted homosexuals.

    I just failed to find such a report in a Google search, but I did find that Ahmadinejad referred in his election victory speech to the homosexuals in Iran he had claimed do not exist:

    Also this on homosexuals in particular:
    "Yesterday Ahmadinejad had a 'Victory' Speech and he directly insulted and
    threatened homosexuals.

    He said all the other candidates in the election tried to get the attention of
    junkies, Homosexuals and theives to win in the election but we never support such people—they don't have any rights.'

    He used an impolite word for 'homosexuals' between 'faggot' and 'homo' and shows his total disrespect and hatred of us."

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 09:09:18 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site