Jonah Goldberg nails it in
this essay. Here are a few snippets:
Of course there are important differences between an incestuous or a
polygamous marriage and a loving committed relationship between two
homosexuals. Indeed, it’s instructive that many gay-rights activists
take offense whenever opponents say that legalizing gay marriage will
lead to polygamy, incest or bestiality. They insist such comparisons are
ridiculous. And they’re right! But it’s also ridiculous to equate Jim
Crow prohibitions on interracial marriage to prohibitions on gay
marriage.
If you can’t see the problem, it’s this: The whole point of the
civil-rights movement is that skin color is superficial. Sex — i.e.,
male, female — is actually a real and deep biological difference. You
could look it up...
When Republicans tried to filibuster the Affordable Care Act (a k a
ObamaCare), Sen. Harry Reid lamented, “When this body was on the verge
of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color
of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats
that we hear today.”
That’s true! But . . . so what? How, exactly is opposition to an
ever-more disastrous health-care reform bill akin to denying the
humanity of African-American citizens? Is any filibuster threat now
tainted by Dixiecrat opposition to civil rights?
Let's remember which party those Dixiecrats represented...and now back to our snippets:
The Washington Post reported this week that civil-rights activists in
Florida are dismayed that the George Zimmerman murder trial in Florida
isn’t racially divisive enough. “It makes you feel kind of angry and
kind of bad that race is not a part of this,” the Rev. Harrold C.
Daniels, told the Post. “It’s a missed opportunity"...
When the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Voting Rights Act needed
to take into account that blacks now vote more than whites in
jurisdictions that are presumed to be racist, many responded as if the
Supreme Court reinstated Jim Crow. MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry cried
out on Twitter, “Damn, that citizenship thing was so great for awhile.”
The article's denouement is powerful. The thesis? Times have changed, and liberals haven't.
2 comments:
Indeed.
Which party had until quite recently a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter and official in the Senate and saw fit to ignore that affiliation?
No Darren, liberals haven't. If they get off the race baiting poverty tour they would have to get a real job.
Post a Comment