Click On Title To Link To July 2, 2009 "New York Review Of Books" Article Entitled "The Same-Sex Future" By David Cole That Gives An Update On This Struggle And A Capsule Of The Various Positions On The Issue.
Commentary
Sometimes the fight for a simple democratic right is not so simple. Moreover, sometimes it’s kind of messy when the issues get drawn up to the razor’s edge like the hot-button question of same-sex marriage. That is clearly the case with the recent electoral victory of Proposition 8 by a slim majority in California. That proposition, placed on the ballot after the California Supreme Court earlier this year correctly held that the ban against legalization of same-sex marriages was a denial of equal protection under the state constitution, has now embedded inequality into that constitution. Fortunately, there has been push-back on the part of pro-gay rights forces, both on the streets and in the courts.
Here is the part where it gets messy. In the normal course of events militants, as part of their fervent defense of democratic rights, are very much in favor of using initiative and referendum processes in order to get a hearing on particular issues. And, as a general premise, we still are in California and the other places where such procedures are in place. On this issue, however, we have a conflict. A basic substantial right-simply to get married- if the parties so desire. Against that, we have an inflamed, although possibility shifting majority, that wants to deny this right. The simple right trumps that inflamed desire to deny the right. Case closed. Now that may not accord with the beauties of democratic theory, such as it is, but there you have it. In a class-bound society, driven many times by irrational or thoughtless politics, we do not always get to choose our issues or have them presented by others in a manner that we can uphold. This should be one of my classic “no-brainer” issues. Oh well, our day will come.
In these quarters it is not clear whether the California Supreme Court will uphold its own correct initial impulses and strike down the amendment. (There is a legal question on the procedure followed by the Proposition 8 initiators about whether the matter should have been brought before the legislature first and then placed on the ballot or whether it could be placed directly on the ballot- the ‘amendment vs. revision’ argument). That is nether here nor then for our purposes. We, as always, will use the courts as best we can without having any illusions that justice will out. What is more important is to continue that pressure in the streets to keep the issue public.
On that question it is noteworthy that one of the central targets of the California demonstrators has been the Mormon Church, a key backer of the proposition (the other being the Roman Catholic Church). I am always reminded of a poster at a pro-gay marriage demonstration here in Boston when the reactionary forces here tried to overturn the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s gay marriage decision- Mitt (Romney, then governor of Massachusetts and subsequently a 2008 Republican presidential contender) Your Great-Grandfather Had Five Wives- I Only Want One! (The main Mormon Church group permitted polygamy until 1890.) That, my friends, says it in a nutshell. We defend either social arrangement and deny the state the right to interfere with those preferences. Down With California's Proposition 8 Ban! Defend The Right To Same-Sex Marriage!
Showing posts with label MORMONS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MORMONS. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Hands Off The Mormons!
Commentary
I thought I was done talking about Mormons for a while after the demise of Mitt Romney’s Republican presidential campaign, but apparently not. At that time I spent not a few words on Mr. Romney’s family history, including an admiring comment on the executive ability of his great-grandfather in presiding over a household with five wives. I mentioned at the time that, in the old days, I had my hands full when I has more than one girlfriend. I also have in the past expressed an interest in Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS), not for his finding golden tablets, or whatever, out in the wilds of upstate New York in the 1820's but as a Free-Soiler (anti-slavery advocate) and presidential candidate in the mid-1840’s before his murder by the rabble in Illinois. Today, though I have to speak of more serious issues, even though belatedly.
We have all become painfully aware over the past several weeks of the plight of several hundred women (mostly mothers) and children of the separatist Fundamental Church of Latter Day Saints as they were hounded and rounded up by a phalanx of Texas legal and social service authorities over some sexual abuse that was allegedly going on at their rural ranch. This sect, which has no direct relationship to Mitt Romney’s mainstream LDS’ers, holds the practice of polygamy as one of their central tenets, a tenet given up by the mainstream Mormons in 1890. Since that roundup which eventually scattered the children all over the state in foster homes and state institutions, a series of Texas court actions, including a successful appeal to the Texas Appeals Court, the state’s highest court, has finally gotten the children back with their kin. There are, however, still rumblings by the state authorities about their self-ordained right to carry out such invasions at will.
But here is the real issue for socialists and just plain civil libertarian types. Why was this sect being so readily prosecuted by the state on what, at best, were flimsy and unsubstantiated charges that proved to be laughable in court? As distant as I am from the beliefs of this seemingly harmless, reclusive and isolated sect and as distant as I am from either wanting to have several wives or being one of several husbands of a woman (polyandry) for that matter, I find it that it is necessary to defend these fundamentalist Mormons against the ravages to their personal lives by the state actions. As long as the question of effective consent is given, the only real criteria that should govern such relationships, it is nobody’s business, especially the state’s what social relationships people enter into. For all those shocked by the notion of so-called "child brides" look to the history of marriage regulation or for that matter the common law of your locale (if in a common law state).
I think that the way that the state of Texas has handled this matter has outraged more people than normally would be the case, unlike the Waco governmental invasion under Bill Clinton, and that is to the good. As the old adage goes- if they can get away with carting off the helpless and reclusive then what about the rights of rest of us- is fully operational here. But this episode should also make us aware, very aware, of why we leftists support the slogan- Government out of the bedrooms! Hands Off The Mormons! And Keep Them Off!
I thought I was done talking about Mormons for a while after the demise of Mitt Romney’s Republican presidential campaign, but apparently not. At that time I spent not a few words on Mr. Romney’s family history, including an admiring comment on the executive ability of his great-grandfather in presiding over a household with five wives. I mentioned at the time that, in the old days, I had my hands full when I has more than one girlfriend. I also have in the past expressed an interest in Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS), not for his finding golden tablets, or whatever, out in the wilds of upstate New York in the 1820's but as a Free-Soiler (anti-slavery advocate) and presidential candidate in the mid-1840’s before his murder by the rabble in Illinois. Today, though I have to speak of more serious issues, even though belatedly.
We have all become painfully aware over the past several weeks of the plight of several hundred women (mostly mothers) and children of the separatist Fundamental Church of Latter Day Saints as they were hounded and rounded up by a phalanx of Texas legal and social service authorities over some sexual abuse that was allegedly going on at their rural ranch. This sect, which has no direct relationship to Mitt Romney’s mainstream LDS’ers, holds the practice of polygamy as one of their central tenets, a tenet given up by the mainstream Mormons in 1890. Since that roundup which eventually scattered the children all over the state in foster homes and state institutions, a series of Texas court actions, including a successful appeal to the Texas Appeals Court, the state’s highest court, has finally gotten the children back with their kin. There are, however, still rumblings by the state authorities about their self-ordained right to carry out such invasions at will.
But here is the real issue for socialists and just plain civil libertarian types. Why was this sect being so readily prosecuted by the state on what, at best, were flimsy and unsubstantiated charges that proved to be laughable in court? As distant as I am from the beliefs of this seemingly harmless, reclusive and isolated sect and as distant as I am from either wanting to have several wives or being one of several husbands of a woman (polyandry) for that matter, I find it that it is necessary to defend these fundamentalist Mormons against the ravages to their personal lives by the state actions. As long as the question of effective consent is given, the only real criteria that should govern such relationships, it is nobody’s business, especially the state’s what social relationships people enter into. For all those shocked by the notion of so-called "child brides" look to the history of marriage regulation or for that matter the common law of your locale (if in a common law state).
I think that the way that the state of Texas has handled this matter has outraged more people than normally would be the case, unlike the Waco governmental invasion under Bill Clinton, and that is to the good. As the old adage goes- if they can get away with carting off the helpless and reclusive then what about the rights of rest of us- is fully operational here. But this episode should also make us aware, very aware, of why we leftists support the slogan- Government out of the bedrooms! Hands Off The Mormons! And Keep Them Off!
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
*From "Workers Vanguard"- Mormon Polygamists- Leave Them Alone!
Click on the headline to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for Mormon polygamists.
Workers Vanguard No. 916
6 June 2008
Mormon Polygamists—Leave Them Alone!
On April 3, heavily armed Texas Rangers, police agencies from six counties, the state highway patrol and wildlife officers stormed into a polygamous Mormon community in Eldorado, Texas. A phone call was the pretext for this massive raid on the Yearning for Zion Ranch of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), a long-established split-off from the mainstream Mormons. Authorities now admit this call by a woman claiming sexual abuse at the ranch was probably a hoax. Over the next seven days, more than 500 children and women were kidnapped in a state onslaught of “collective punishment.”
At least 465 of those kidnapped were under age 18 and were seized by Child Protective Services (CPS). Thirty-one women were pregnant when arrested; two have given birth while in state custody. Several of the “children” in custody are actually mothers who have had their own infants seized. All the parents were separated from their children, many sent hundreds of miles away, while the state conducted humiliating DNA tests to determine parents’ “legitimacy” to visit their children. The outrageous treatment of the Mormon families is the real abuse perpetrated here! It was so bad that even the Texas Supreme Court on May 29 upheld a prior appeals court ruling that the state had no right to seize the children. As we go to press, most of those seized are being returned to their parents.
We Marxists have a longstanding position in defense of polygamous Mormons against state persecution. We stated in “For the Right of Gay Marriage…and Divorce! Marriage and the Capitalist State” (WV No. 824, 16 April 2004): “We believe the Mormons have the right to be left alone, to practice their religion and live their private lives however they see fit. Our position for the right of gay marriage, like the right of Mormons to practice polygamy, stems from our opposition to government interference with the rights of individuals to effect whatever consensual arrangements they wish.” Leave the Mormon polygamists alone!
The raid and the mass kidnapping have sparked outrage, not least in Mormon strongholds such as Salt Lake City, where 50 protested on April 24 outside an NBA playoff game between the Rockets and Jazz. As FLDS spokesman Rod Parker said, “I think every American needs to be very fearful of what Child Protective Services is doing in Texas.” Mental health workers at emergency shelters for the women and children expressed anger toward the state’s child welfare agency for removing the children from their mothers and for the conditions in the shelters, which were so poor that upper respiratory infections and chicken pox spread rapidly. One of the workers said it was a deliberate form of coercion: “The more uncomfortable they were the more CPS thought they would talk.” The entire mental health staff was fired the second week, accused by the authorities of being “too compassionate” (Houston Chronicle, 10 May).
The spiritual leader of the FLDS, Warren Jeffs, is in prison, charged with “rape as an accomplice” for performing a marriage—“rape” because the young woman, who was 14, was underage and the groom was her 19-year-old cousin. In “Feds Hands Off Mormon Fundamentalists!” (WV No. 871, 26 May 2006), we defended Jeffs against the government’s witchhunt before his capture, denouncing the anti-sex hysteria and hypocrisy of the authorities and noting that such early marriages were commonplace only decades ago. New Hampshire, for example, still allows 13-year-old girls to marry with parental consent. In some European countries, the age of consent is 14 years, while in quite a few U.S. states first cousins can legally marry.
The state uses reactionary “age of consent” laws to oppress youth—who are supposed to go against nature and be “sexless,” especially if they’re female—and expand its own powers of repression. We oppose “age of consent,” “squeal rules” and “statutory rape” laws, which strengthen the repressive reach of the state, as well as serving as a diversion from the real brutality of this sick capitalist society. We uphold effective consent as the only guiding principle in sexual relations—i.e., mutual agreement and understanding, as opposed to coercion. As long as those who take part agree to do so at the time, no one, least of all the state, has the right to tell them they can’t do it. Rape and violent abuse are terrible crimes that occur throughout society and in monogamous as well as polygamous families. But the prosecution of Mormons for polygamy can only force possible victims to retreat further underground in legitimate fear of the authorities.
The question of polygamy has a long history in the U.S., and was central to the development of Mormonism in the 19th century. When in 1890 the Mormons officially renounced the practice, preparatory to getting Utah recognized as a U.S. state in 1896, significant breakaway factions continued polygamy, one calling themselves the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. Today, an estimated 10,000 FLDS followers live in communities concentrated along the Utah-Arizona border and nearby states. Their presence in Texas dates only from 2003, and the Texas state authorities have been extremely aggressive in their attempts to banish them.
President Abraham Lincoln, though he later signed a bill outlawing plural marriages, made an early statement to a Mormon journalist regarding the Mormons, a model of good sense and tolerance that the rulers of this decaying capitalist society have long since abandoned. When he was a boy on the farm, he said, “Occasionally we would come to a log which had fallen down. It was too hard to split, too wet to burn and too heavy to move, so we plowed around it. That’s what I intend to do with the Mormons. You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone I will let him alone.”
The Family and Organized Religion: Props of Brutal Bourgeois Rule
With revolting hypocrisy, America’s rulers are flexing their muscles against a tiny community in rural Texas while hailing one of the most anti-woman and feudalist forces in the world, the Dalai Lama and the deposed pro-slavery Tibetan “Lamaocracy.” Before the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) came to Tibet, it was a hellhole for poor peasants and women, who slaved like oxen as the ruling monks meditated in the temples. In pre-1950s Tibet, polygamy was the norm and intrinsic to the enslavement of women. Its corollary was polyandry among poorer males, who had to share a wife with other men (often brothers) because they could not afford wives themselves. The PLA’s extension to Tibet of the gains of the 1949 Chinese Revolution, which overthrew capitalist rule in China, broke the lamas’ power and lifted the region from feudal darkness, a leap of several centuries in human development (see “Defend Chinese Deformed Workers State! Counterrevolutionary Riots in Tibet,” WV No. 911, 28 March).
Whereas American Mormons essentially choose their practice, in many regions of the world the legacy of precapitalist social backwardness means that women are held to be little more than property, requiring struggle by communists to abolish institutionalized polygamy, as well as the bride price, female genital mutilation and other such practices. In countries of belated capitalist development, social backwardness is reinforced and manipulated by imperialist domination. For example, the U.S. imperialists prop up reactionary client states like impoverished Afghanistan and oil-rich Saudi Arabia, countries where women are forcibly veiled head-to-toe and denied virtually any rights.
In the United States, the government wields its hypocritical “save the children” card to more thoroughly target those it deems “deviant,” including the Eldorado community. The lie of government concern for mothers and children is worn threadbare, as both Democrats and Republicans have slashed welfare and social programs over the past decades, with a huge toll in malnutrition, disease and death. “Abstinence” programs for teens have only enforced sexual ignorance—and resulted in a recent increase in STDs (sexually transmitted diseases). The reality for many poor and working-class Americans, especially single black mothers, is Child Protective Services hounding them and ripping away their children for “neglect” or “abuse,” often because they don’t have anyone to leave their kids with while they go to work.
Certainly the family is a cesspool of frustration, coercion and abuse—whether the bourgeois “one man on one woman for life” model or that of the Mormon polygamists. But it is almost universally far, far worse to fall into the clutches of this barbaric and brutal government’s institutions. Youth who try to escape their families have nowhere to go—and often end up imprisoned in detention centers where they are more likely to be beaten and raped than “rehabilitated.” We fight for free, 24-hour, quality day-care centers and for safe shelters for youth and teens as well as for free contraceptives and abortion on demand and other quality medical care, and for significantly lowering the “age of adulthood.” These are basic measures to help those most in need escape desperate poverty and the straitjacket of the family, without bringing in the cops and prison system.
Fundamentally, the oppression of women and youth is rooted in the institution of the family, which arose with the advent of private property as the mechanism for passing property from one generation to the next, with the monogamous wife supposedly ensuring the heirs’ paternity. For the masses, the role of the family is to instill respect for authority and to act as a conservatizing force. Together with religion, the institution of the family serves to instill a morality that proscribes anything that deviates from the family ideal—such as premarital and gay sex. It reinforces, as Friedrich Engels put it, “the supremacy of the man over the woman, and the individual family as the economic unit of society” (The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State [1884]). Thus, the burden of raising the next generation of workers rests on the family. We wrote in “Free Tom Green! Mormon Polygamists: Leave Them Alone!” (WV No. 764, 14 September 2001):
“The family structure—whether monogamous or polygamous—necessarily oppresses women. However, not everybody understands the source of their oppression, and people do all sorts of things that are undoubtedly bad for them that the state still has no business throwing them in prison for. As Marxists we understand that the family serves a real social purpose and cannot simply be ‘abolished,’ even in a workers state, but must be replaced with alternate social institutions.”
The material basis for women’s liberation can be established only through workers revolutions internationally. In power, the working class would abolish the capitalist private property and inheritance system and socialize the current functions of the family—providing communal kitchens, childcare and health care—thus freeing women from the burden of child-rearing and household slavery.
Regarding religion itself—Mormon or otherwise—our attitude is that it is reactionary superstition counterposed to Marxist materialism. We fight to purge religion from public education and government policy. Religion provides moral justification for exploitation and reactionary prejudices. It deflects workers’ struggles into piety and acquiescence to bourgeois power. But religious beliefs cannot be “abolished” by government decree; they will only wither away when material want is overcome and the oppressed masses no longer feel the need to resort to the supernatural to provide for what is, in capitalist society, unattainable—the hope for a better life, which for billions of people today can only be dreamt of in “heavenly” fantasies.
Persecution by the bourgeois state of religious practices targets smaller, fringe sects or oppressed minorities, reinforcing the moral authority of “mainstream” religions and, more importantly, the bourgeois state itself. We demand the complete separation of church and state, as we seek to relegate religion to the confines of personal belief, and oppose state persecution of religious beliefs. Just as we defend the Church of Scientology against state repression in Germany, we defend the Fundamentalist Mormons, who are being targeted for practices that are nobody’s business but their own.
Given the anti-sex hysteria and ignorance it promulgates, the bourgeois state finds it easy to justify the most barbaric of penalties and intrusions into people’s private lives under the guise of protecting children from sexual abuse. America’s rulers are not interested in protecting children; they are the main oppressors and killers of children, from the black and Latino youth gunned down by cops in the ghettos to the hundreds of thousands of children killed in the predatory wars waged by the American imperialists around the world.
The Eldorado raid is frighteningly reminiscent of the Waco massacre in 1993, when Democratic president Bill Clinton and his attorney general Janet Reno’s thugs ended a three-month siege of the racially integrated Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, by burning alive 86 men, women and children. The guise was alleged “child abuse.” And we do not forget the MOVE massacre in 1985, when the Philadelphia police, led by black Democratic mayor Wilson Goode, and the federal government conspired to firebomb the mainly black back-to-nature MOVE commune, killing eleven people, including five children, and destroying an entire black neighborhood. The Waco and MOVE massacres loom as a reminder of how far the bloody American bourgeois state will go.
While the Eldorado Mormons may be a peculiar sect, they are not the ones wielding the massive apparatus of death that is the bourgeois state, whether administered by the Republicans or Democrats. Just as women’s liberation requires a socialist revolution that expropriates the capitalist class and lays the foundation for the replacement of the family, so the workers and oppressed of this country cannot liberate themselves without understanding that the bourgeois state, with its cops, judges and prisons, must be smashed and replaced by a workers state
Workers Vanguard No. 916
6 June 2008
Mormon Polygamists—Leave Them Alone!
On April 3, heavily armed Texas Rangers, police agencies from six counties, the state highway patrol and wildlife officers stormed into a polygamous Mormon community in Eldorado, Texas. A phone call was the pretext for this massive raid on the Yearning for Zion Ranch of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), a long-established split-off from the mainstream Mormons. Authorities now admit this call by a woman claiming sexual abuse at the ranch was probably a hoax. Over the next seven days, more than 500 children and women were kidnapped in a state onslaught of “collective punishment.”
At least 465 of those kidnapped were under age 18 and were seized by Child Protective Services (CPS). Thirty-one women were pregnant when arrested; two have given birth while in state custody. Several of the “children” in custody are actually mothers who have had their own infants seized. All the parents were separated from their children, many sent hundreds of miles away, while the state conducted humiliating DNA tests to determine parents’ “legitimacy” to visit their children. The outrageous treatment of the Mormon families is the real abuse perpetrated here! It was so bad that even the Texas Supreme Court on May 29 upheld a prior appeals court ruling that the state had no right to seize the children. As we go to press, most of those seized are being returned to their parents.
We Marxists have a longstanding position in defense of polygamous Mormons against state persecution. We stated in “For the Right of Gay Marriage…and Divorce! Marriage and the Capitalist State” (WV No. 824, 16 April 2004): “We believe the Mormons have the right to be left alone, to practice their religion and live their private lives however they see fit. Our position for the right of gay marriage, like the right of Mormons to practice polygamy, stems from our opposition to government interference with the rights of individuals to effect whatever consensual arrangements they wish.” Leave the Mormon polygamists alone!
The raid and the mass kidnapping have sparked outrage, not least in Mormon strongholds such as Salt Lake City, where 50 protested on April 24 outside an NBA playoff game between the Rockets and Jazz. As FLDS spokesman Rod Parker said, “I think every American needs to be very fearful of what Child Protective Services is doing in Texas.” Mental health workers at emergency shelters for the women and children expressed anger toward the state’s child welfare agency for removing the children from their mothers and for the conditions in the shelters, which were so poor that upper respiratory infections and chicken pox spread rapidly. One of the workers said it was a deliberate form of coercion: “The more uncomfortable they were the more CPS thought they would talk.” The entire mental health staff was fired the second week, accused by the authorities of being “too compassionate” (Houston Chronicle, 10 May).
The spiritual leader of the FLDS, Warren Jeffs, is in prison, charged with “rape as an accomplice” for performing a marriage—“rape” because the young woman, who was 14, was underage and the groom was her 19-year-old cousin. In “Feds Hands Off Mormon Fundamentalists!” (WV No. 871, 26 May 2006), we defended Jeffs against the government’s witchhunt before his capture, denouncing the anti-sex hysteria and hypocrisy of the authorities and noting that such early marriages were commonplace only decades ago. New Hampshire, for example, still allows 13-year-old girls to marry with parental consent. In some European countries, the age of consent is 14 years, while in quite a few U.S. states first cousins can legally marry.
The state uses reactionary “age of consent” laws to oppress youth—who are supposed to go against nature and be “sexless,” especially if they’re female—and expand its own powers of repression. We oppose “age of consent,” “squeal rules” and “statutory rape” laws, which strengthen the repressive reach of the state, as well as serving as a diversion from the real brutality of this sick capitalist society. We uphold effective consent as the only guiding principle in sexual relations—i.e., mutual agreement and understanding, as opposed to coercion. As long as those who take part agree to do so at the time, no one, least of all the state, has the right to tell them they can’t do it. Rape and violent abuse are terrible crimes that occur throughout society and in monogamous as well as polygamous families. But the prosecution of Mormons for polygamy can only force possible victims to retreat further underground in legitimate fear of the authorities.
The question of polygamy has a long history in the U.S., and was central to the development of Mormonism in the 19th century. When in 1890 the Mormons officially renounced the practice, preparatory to getting Utah recognized as a U.S. state in 1896, significant breakaway factions continued polygamy, one calling themselves the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. Today, an estimated 10,000 FLDS followers live in communities concentrated along the Utah-Arizona border and nearby states. Their presence in Texas dates only from 2003, and the Texas state authorities have been extremely aggressive in their attempts to banish them.
President Abraham Lincoln, though he later signed a bill outlawing plural marriages, made an early statement to a Mormon journalist regarding the Mormons, a model of good sense and tolerance that the rulers of this decaying capitalist society have long since abandoned. When he was a boy on the farm, he said, “Occasionally we would come to a log which had fallen down. It was too hard to split, too wet to burn and too heavy to move, so we plowed around it. That’s what I intend to do with the Mormons. You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone I will let him alone.”
The Family and Organized Religion: Props of Brutal Bourgeois Rule
With revolting hypocrisy, America’s rulers are flexing their muscles against a tiny community in rural Texas while hailing one of the most anti-woman and feudalist forces in the world, the Dalai Lama and the deposed pro-slavery Tibetan “Lamaocracy.” Before the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) came to Tibet, it was a hellhole for poor peasants and women, who slaved like oxen as the ruling monks meditated in the temples. In pre-1950s Tibet, polygamy was the norm and intrinsic to the enslavement of women. Its corollary was polyandry among poorer males, who had to share a wife with other men (often brothers) because they could not afford wives themselves. The PLA’s extension to Tibet of the gains of the 1949 Chinese Revolution, which overthrew capitalist rule in China, broke the lamas’ power and lifted the region from feudal darkness, a leap of several centuries in human development (see “Defend Chinese Deformed Workers State! Counterrevolutionary Riots in Tibet,” WV No. 911, 28 March).
Whereas American Mormons essentially choose their practice, in many regions of the world the legacy of precapitalist social backwardness means that women are held to be little more than property, requiring struggle by communists to abolish institutionalized polygamy, as well as the bride price, female genital mutilation and other such practices. In countries of belated capitalist development, social backwardness is reinforced and manipulated by imperialist domination. For example, the U.S. imperialists prop up reactionary client states like impoverished Afghanistan and oil-rich Saudi Arabia, countries where women are forcibly veiled head-to-toe and denied virtually any rights.
In the United States, the government wields its hypocritical “save the children” card to more thoroughly target those it deems “deviant,” including the Eldorado community. The lie of government concern for mothers and children is worn threadbare, as both Democrats and Republicans have slashed welfare and social programs over the past decades, with a huge toll in malnutrition, disease and death. “Abstinence” programs for teens have only enforced sexual ignorance—and resulted in a recent increase in STDs (sexually transmitted diseases). The reality for many poor and working-class Americans, especially single black mothers, is Child Protective Services hounding them and ripping away their children for “neglect” or “abuse,” often because they don’t have anyone to leave their kids with while they go to work.
Certainly the family is a cesspool of frustration, coercion and abuse—whether the bourgeois “one man on one woman for life” model or that of the Mormon polygamists. But it is almost universally far, far worse to fall into the clutches of this barbaric and brutal government’s institutions. Youth who try to escape their families have nowhere to go—and often end up imprisoned in detention centers where they are more likely to be beaten and raped than “rehabilitated.” We fight for free, 24-hour, quality day-care centers and for safe shelters for youth and teens as well as for free contraceptives and abortion on demand and other quality medical care, and for significantly lowering the “age of adulthood.” These are basic measures to help those most in need escape desperate poverty and the straitjacket of the family, without bringing in the cops and prison system.
Fundamentally, the oppression of women and youth is rooted in the institution of the family, which arose with the advent of private property as the mechanism for passing property from one generation to the next, with the monogamous wife supposedly ensuring the heirs’ paternity. For the masses, the role of the family is to instill respect for authority and to act as a conservatizing force. Together with religion, the institution of the family serves to instill a morality that proscribes anything that deviates from the family ideal—such as premarital and gay sex. It reinforces, as Friedrich Engels put it, “the supremacy of the man over the woman, and the individual family as the economic unit of society” (The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State [1884]). Thus, the burden of raising the next generation of workers rests on the family. We wrote in “Free Tom Green! Mormon Polygamists: Leave Them Alone!” (WV No. 764, 14 September 2001):
“The family structure—whether monogamous or polygamous—necessarily oppresses women. However, not everybody understands the source of their oppression, and people do all sorts of things that are undoubtedly bad for them that the state still has no business throwing them in prison for. As Marxists we understand that the family serves a real social purpose and cannot simply be ‘abolished,’ even in a workers state, but must be replaced with alternate social institutions.”
The material basis for women’s liberation can be established only through workers revolutions internationally. In power, the working class would abolish the capitalist private property and inheritance system and socialize the current functions of the family—providing communal kitchens, childcare and health care—thus freeing women from the burden of child-rearing and household slavery.
Regarding religion itself—Mormon or otherwise—our attitude is that it is reactionary superstition counterposed to Marxist materialism. We fight to purge religion from public education and government policy. Religion provides moral justification for exploitation and reactionary prejudices. It deflects workers’ struggles into piety and acquiescence to bourgeois power. But religious beliefs cannot be “abolished” by government decree; they will only wither away when material want is overcome and the oppressed masses no longer feel the need to resort to the supernatural to provide for what is, in capitalist society, unattainable—the hope for a better life, which for billions of people today can only be dreamt of in “heavenly” fantasies.
Persecution by the bourgeois state of religious practices targets smaller, fringe sects or oppressed minorities, reinforcing the moral authority of “mainstream” religions and, more importantly, the bourgeois state itself. We demand the complete separation of church and state, as we seek to relegate religion to the confines of personal belief, and oppose state persecution of religious beliefs. Just as we defend the Church of Scientology against state repression in Germany, we defend the Fundamentalist Mormons, who are being targeted for practices that are nobody’s business but their own.
Given the anti-sex hysteria and ignorance it promulgates, the bourgeois state finds it easy to justify the most barbaric of penalties and intrusions into people’s private lives under the guise of protecting children from sexual abuse. America’s rulers are not interested in protecting children; they are the main oppressors and killers of children, from the black and Latino youth gunned down by cops in the ghettos to the hundreds of thousands of children killed in the predatory wars waged by the American imperialists around the world.
The Eldorado raid is frighteningly reminiscent of the Waco massacre in 1993, when Democratic president Bill Clinton and his attorney general Janet Reno’s thugs ended a three-month siege of the racially integrated Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, by burning alive 86 men, women and children. The guise was alleged “child abuse.” And we do not forget the MOVE massacre in 1985, when the Philadelphia police, led by black Democratic mayor Wilson Goode, and the federal government conspired to firebomb the mainly black back-to-nature MOVE commune, killing eleven people, including five children, and destroying an entire black neighborhood. The Waco and MOVE massacres loom as a reminder of how far the bloody American bourgeois state will go.
While the Eldorado Mormons may be a peculiar sect, they are not the ones wielding the massive apparatus of death that is the bourgeois state, whether administered by the Republicans or Democrats. Just as women’s liberation requires a socialist revolution that expropriates the capitalist class and lays the foundation for the replacement of the family, so the workers and oppressed of this country cannot liberate themselves without understanding that the bourgeois state, with its cops, judges and prisons, must be smashed and replaced by a workers state
Friday, December 07, 2007
NO RELIGIOUS TESTS FOR OFFICE- FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
COMMENTARY
Every once in a while left wing propagandists, including this writer, are forced to comment on odd ball political or social questions that are not directly related to the fight for socialism. Nevertheless such questions must be addressed in the interest of preserving democratic rights, such as they are. I have often argued that socialists are, or should be, the best defenders of democratic rights, hanging in there long after many bourgeois democrats have thrown in the towel, especially on constitutional questions like abortion and searches and seizures.
A good example from the not too distant past, which I am fond of citing because it seems so counter intuitive, was opposition to the impeachment of one William Jefferson Clinton, at one time President of the United States and now potentially the first First Ladies’ man. How, one might ask could professed socialists defend the rights of the Number One Imperialist –in Chief. Simple, Clinton was not being tried for any real crimes against working people but found himself framed by the right wing cabal for his personal sexual preferences and habits. That he was not very artful in defense of himself is beside the point. We say government out of the bedrooms (or wherever) whether White House or hovel. We do no favor political witch-hunts of the highborn or the low for their personal predilections. Interestingly, no one at the time proposed that Clinton be tried as a war criminal for his very real crimes in trying to bomb Serbia, under the guidance of one Wesley Clark, back to the Stone Age (and nearly succeeding). Enough said.
Now we are confronted with another strange situation in the case of one ex-Governor of Massachusetts and current Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney on the question of his Mormon religious affiliation and his capacity to be president of a secular state. Romney, on Thursday December 6, 2007 fled down to Houston, apparently forced to deal with the issue by his vanishing prospects in Iowa, and made a speech about his Mormon faith, or at least his fitness for office. This speech evoked in some quarters, at least formally, Jack Kennedy’s use in the 1960 presidential campaign of the same tool concerning his Roman Catholicism as a way to cut across anti-Catholic bigotry in a mainly Protestant country and to affirm his commitment to a democratic secular state. I pulled up that speech off the Internet and although Kennedy clearly evoked his religious affiliation many times in that speech he left it at that, a personal choice. He did not go on and on about his friendship with Jesus or enumerate the virtues of an increased role for religion in political life.
Romney’s play is another kettle of fish entirely. He WANTS to affirm that his Mormon beliefs rather than being rather esoteric are in line with mainstream Protestant fundamentalist tenets. In short, Jesus is his guide. Christ what hell, yes hell, have we come to when a major political party in a democratic secular state has for all intents and purposes a religious test for its nominee for president. A cursory glance at the history of 18th century England and its exclusion clauses, codified in statutes, for Catholics and dissenters demonstrates why our forbears rejected that notion. It is rather ironic that Romney evoked the name of Samuel Adams as an avatar of religious toleration during some ecumenical meeting in 1774. Hell, yes when you are getting ready to fight for a Republic, arms in hand, and need every gun willing to fight the King you are damn right religion is beside the point. Revolutions are like that. Trying to prove your mettle as a fundamentalist Christian in order to woo the yahoo vote in 2007 is hardly in the same category. Nevertheless on the democratic question- down with religious tests, formal or otherwise, for political office.
Now to get nasty. Isn’t it about time we started running these religious nuts back into their hideouts? I have profound differences with the political, social and economic organization of this country. However, as stated above, I stand for the defense of the democratic secular state against the yahoos when they try, friendly with Jesus or not, to bring religion foursquare into the ‘public square’. We have seen the effects of that for the last thirty or forty years and, hit me on the head if I am dreaming, but isn’t the current occupant of the White House on so kind of first name basis with his God. Enough. Look, this country is a prime example of an Enlightenment experiment, and tattered as it has become it is not a bad base to move on from. Those who, including Brother Romney, want a faith-based state- get back, way back. In the fight against religious obscurantism I will stand with science, frail as it sometimes is, any day. Defend the Enlightenment, and let’s move on.
Every once in a while left wing propagandists, including this writer, are forced to comment on odd ball political or social questions that are not directly related to the fight for socialism. Nevertheless such questions must be addressed in the interest of preserving democratic rights, such as they are. I have often argued that socialists are, or should be, the best defenders of democratic rights, hanging in there long after many bourgeois democrats have thrown in the towel, especially on constitutional questions like abortion and searches and seizures.
A good example from the not too distant past, which I am fond of citing because it seems so counter intuitive, was opposition to the impeachment of one William Jefferson Clinton, at one time President of the United States and now potentially the first First Ladies’ man. How, one might ask could professed socialists defend the rights of the Number One Imperialist –in Chief. Simple, Clinton was not being tried for any real crimes against working people but found himself framed by the right wing cabal for his personal sexual preferences and habits. That he was not very artful in defense of himself is beside the point. We say government out of the bedrooms (or wherever) whether White House or hovel. We do no favor political witch-hunts of the highborn or the low for their personal predilections. Interestingly, no one at the time proposed that Clinton be tried as a war criminal for his very real crimes in trying to bomb Serbia, under the guidance of one Wesley Clark, back to the Stone Age (and nearly succeeding). Enough said.
Now we are confronted with another strange situation in the case of one ex-Governor of Massachusetts and current Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney on the question of his Mormon religious affiliation and his capacity to be president of a secular state. Romney, on Thursday December 6, 2007 fled down to Houston, apparently forced to deal with the issue by his vanishing prospects in Iowa, and made a speech about his Mormon faith, or at least his fitness for office. This speech evoked in some quarters, at least formally, Jack Kennedy’s use in the 1960 presidential campaign of the same tool concerning his Roman Catholicism as a way to cut across anti-Catholic bigotry in a mainly Protestant country and to affirm his commitment to a democratic secular state. I pulled up that speech off the Internet and although Kennedy clearly evoked his religious affiliation many times in that speech he left it at that, a personal choice. He did not go on and on about his friendship with Jesus or enumerate the virtues of an increased role for religion in political life.
Romney’s play is another kettle of fish entirely. He WANTS to affirm that his Mormon beliefs rather than being rather esoteric are in line with mainstream Protestant fundamentalist tenets. In short, Jesus is his guide. Christ what hell, yes hell, have we come to when a major political party in a democratic secular state has for all intents and purposes a religious test for its nominee for president. A cursory glance at the history of 18th century England and its exclusion clauses, codified in statutes, for Catholics and dissenters demonstrates why our forbears rejected that notion. It is rather ironic that Romney evoked the name of Samuel Adams as an avatar of religious toleration during some ecumenical meeting in 1774. Hell, yes when you are getting ready to fight for a Republic, arms in hand, and need every gun willing to fight the King you are damn right religion is beside the point. Revolutions are like that. Trying to prove your mettle as a fundamentalist Christian in order to woo the yahoo vote in 2007 is hardly in the same category. Nevertheless on the democratic question- down with religious tests, formal or otherwise, for political office.
Now to get nasty. Isn’t it about time we started running these religious nuts back into their hideouts? I have profound differences with the political, social and economic organization of this country. However, as stated above, I stand for the defense of the democratic secular state against the yahoos when they try, friendly with Jesus or not, to bring religion foursquare into the ‘public square’. We have seen the effects of that for the last thirty or forty years and, hit me on the head if I am dreaming, but isn’t the current occupant of the White House on so kind of first name basis with his God. Enough. Look, this country is a prime example of an Enlightenment experiment, and tattered as it has become it is not a bad base to move on from. Those who, including Brother Romney, want a faith-based state- get back, way back. In the fight against religious obscurantism I will stand with science, frail as it sometimes is, any day. Defend the Enlightenment, and let’s move on.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
IN DEFENSE OF MITT ROMNEY'S GREAT-GRANDFATHER-AND GREAT GRANDMOTHERS
COMMENTARY
FIVE WIVES AT THE SAME TIME SHOW REAL EXECUTIVE ABILITY-RIGHT?
In a recent interview on CBS's Sixty Minutes Republican presidential hopeful ex- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a professed Mormon, declared that he thought that the fact that his great-grandfather took (or was ordered to take) five wives was ‘terrible’. As the fiercely persecuted Mormons settled in Utah apparently the numerical balance between men and women was off and polygamy was therefore encouraged. Naturally, being a male-dominated religious variant of Christianity that necessary was couched in theological terms, as well. The practice was officially banned by that denomination in 1890. However, the practice, as witnessed by some recent court cases in the West, still flourishes in some areas amount Old Style Mormons.
One can see that for someone who is running on a ‘family values’ platform highlighted by support for the proposition that marriage is between one man-one woman and is touting personal fidelity to one wife and one set of children in order to grab the brass ring of the presidency that such a family history may in fact be 'terrible'. But step back a minute Mitt, aside from being very disrespectful to your family line, what is the harm of having five, or for that matter, ten wives? Or a woman having ten husbands? As long a there is effective consent among and between the parties whose business is it anyway? And why be ashamed of that ‘skeleton’ in the family closet?
We socialists are not as squeamish as brother Romney appears to be about either the details of his family history or about how people arrange their personal lives. There has been a great hue and cry lately in the West over some Old Style Mormon instances of polygamy, including the usual allegations of coercion. Coercion or forcing “shot gun” weddings, singly or in multiples, is not what we mean by effective consent. However, absent coercion it is not the state’s business to interfere. We may have a different take than Mormons on what we think personal relationships will look like under socialism once the nuclear family (or what today stands for that proposition) recedes into the background as the basis unit of society but for now the variety of human experiences in interpersonal relationships is way beyond the scope of what the state needs to interfere in.
I, personally, want to learn more about old Great-Grandpa Romney and Joseph Smith-the founder of Mormonism and a Free Soiler candidate for office before he was murdered in the 1840’s. On the face of it those individuals seem, unlike Mitt, interesting personalities. Certainly everyone must concede that old Great-Grandfather Romney seems more interesting than his progeny. And had to have more real executive ability than latter monogamous Romneys. Hell, I had my hands full when, back in the days, I had two girlfriends at one time. Hands Off the Old Style Mormons! Government Out of the Bedrooms!
COMMENTARY
FIVE WIVES AT THE SAME TIME SHOW REAL EXECUTIVE ABILITY-RIGHT?
In a recent interview on CBS's Sixty Minutes Republican presidential hopeful ex- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a professed Mormon, declared that he thought that the fact that his great-grandfather took (or was ordered to take) five wives was ‘terrible’. As the fiercely persecuted Mormons settled in Utah apparently the numerical balance between men and women was off and polygamy was therefore encouraged. Naturally, being a male-dominated religious variant of Christianity that necessary was couched in theological terms, as well. The practice was officially banned by that denomination in 1890. However, the practice, as witnessed by some recent court cases in the West, still flourishes in some areas amount Old Style Mormons.
One can see that for someone who is running on a ‘family values’ platform highlighted by support for the proposition that marraige is between one man-one woman and is touting personal fidelity to one wife and children in order to grab the brass ring of the presidency that such a family history may in fact be 'terrible'. But step back a minute Mitt, aside from being very disrespectful to your family line, what is the harm of having five, or for that matter, ten wives? Or a woman having ten husbands? As long a there is effective consent among and between the parties whose business is it anyway? And why be ashamed of that ‘skeleton’ in the family closet?
We socialists are not as squeamish as brother Romney appears to be about either the details of his family history or about how people arrange their personal lives. There has been a great hue and cry lately in the West over some Old Style Mormon instances of polygamy, including the usual allegations of coercion. Coercion or forcing “shot gun” weddings, singly or in multiples, is not what we mean by effective consent. However, absent coercion it is not the state’s business to interfere. We may have a different take than Mormons on what we think personal relationships will look like under socialism once the nuclear family (or what today stands for that proposition) recedes into the background as the basis unit of society but for now the variety of human experiences in interpersonal relationships is way beyond the scope of what the state needs to interfere in.
I, personally, want to learn more about old Great-Grandpa Romney and Joseph Smith-the founder of Mormonism and a Free Soiler candidate for office before he was murdered in the 1840’s. On the face of it those individuals seem, unlike Mitt, interesting personalities. Certainly everyone must concede that old Great-Grandfather Romney seems more interesting than his progeny. And had to have more real executive ability than latter monogamous Romneys. Hell, I had my hands full when, back in the days, I had two girlfriends at one time. Hands Off the Old Style Mormons! Government Out of the Bedrooms!
FIVE WIVES AT THE SAME TIME SHOW REAL EXECUTIVE ABILITY-RIGHT?
In a recent interview on CBS's Sixty Minutes Republican presidential hopeful ex- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a professed Mormon, declared that he thought that the fact that his great-grandfather took (or was ordered to take) five wives was ‘terrible’. As the fiercely persecuted Mormons settled in Utah apparently the numerical balance between men and women was off and polygamy was therefore encouraged. Naturally, being a male-dominated religious variant of Christianity that necessary was couched in theological terms, as well. The practice was officially banned by that denomination in 1890. However, the practice, as witnessed by some recent court cases in the West, still flourishes in some areas amount Old Style Mormons.
One can see that for someone who is running on a ‘family values’ platform highlighted by support for the proposition that marriage is between one man-one woman and is touting personal fidelity to one wife and one set of children in order to grab the brass ring of the presidency that such a family history may in fact be 'terrible'. But step back a minute Mitt, aside from being very disrespectful to your family line, what is the harm of having five, or for that matter, ten wives? Or a woman having ten husbands? As long a there is effective consent among and between the parties whose business is it anyway? And why be ashamed of that ‘skeleton’ in the family closet?
We socialists are not as squeamish as brother Romney appears to be about either the details of his family history or about how people arrange their personal lives. There has been a great hue and cry lately in the West over some Old Style Mormon instances of polygamy, including the usual allegations of coercion. Coercion or forcing “shot gun” weddings, singly or in multiples, is not what we mean by effective consent. However, absent coercion it is not the state’s business to interfere. We may have a different take than Mormons on what we think personal relationships will look like under socialism once the nuclear family (or what today stands for that proposition) recedes into the background as the basis unit of society but for now the variety of human experiences in interpersonal relationships is way beyond the scope of what the state needs to interfere in.
I, personally, want to learn more about old Great-Grandpa Romney and Joseph Smith-the founder of Mormonism and a Free Soiler candidate for office before he was murdered in the 1840’s. On the face of it those individuals seem, unlike Mitt, interesting personalities. Certainly everyone must concede that old Great-Grandfather Romney seems more interesting than his progeny. And had to have more real executive ability than latter monogamous Romneys. Hell, I had my hands full when, back in the days, I had two girlfriends at one time. Hands Off the Old Style Mormons! Government Out of the Bedrooms!
COMMENTARY
FIVE WIVES AT THE SAME TIME SHOW REAL EXECUTIVE ABILITY-RIGHT?
In a recent interview on CBS's Sixty Minutes Republican presidential hopeful ex- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a professed Mormon, declared that he thought that the fact that his great-grandfather took (or was ordered to take) five wives was ‘terrible’. As the fiercely persecuted Mormons settled in Utah apparently the numerical balance between men and women was off and polygamy was therefore encouraged. Naturally, being a male-dominated religious variant of Christianity that necessary was couched in theological terms, as well. The practice was officially banned by that denomination in 1890. However, the practice, as witnessed by some recent court cases in the West, still flourishes in some areas amount Old Style Mormons.
One can see that for someone who is running on a ‘family values’ platform highlighted by support for the proposition that marraige is between one man-one woman and is touting personal fidelity to one wife and children in order to grab the brass ring of the presidency that such a family history may in fact be 'terrible'. But step back a minute Mitt, aside from being very disrespectful to your family line, what is the harm of having five, or for that matter, ten wives? Or a woman having ten husbands? As long a there is effective consent among and between the parties whose business is it anyway? And why be ashamed of that ‘skeleton’ in the family closet?
We socialists are not as squeamish as brother Romney appears to be about either the details of his family history or about how people arrange their personal lives. There has been a great hue and cry lately in the West over some Old Style Mormon instances of polygamy, including the usual allegations of coercion. Coercion or forcing “shot gun” weddings, singly or in multiples, is not what we mean by effective consent. However, absent coercion it is not the state’s business to interfere. We may have a different take than Mormons on what we think personal relationships will look like under socialism once the nuclear family (or what today stands for that proposition) recedes into the background as the basis unit of society but for now the variety of human experiences in interpersonal relationships is way beyond the scope of what the state needs to interfere in.
I, personally, want to learn more about old Great-Grandpa Romney and Joseph Smith-the founder of Mormonism and a Free Soiler candidate for office before he was murdered in the 1840’s. On the face of it those individuals seem, unlike Mitt, interesting personalities. Certainly everyone must concede that old Great-Grandfather Romney seems more interesting than his progeny. And had to have more real executive ability than latter monogamous Romneys. Hell, I had my hands full when, back in the days, I had two girlfriends at one time. Hands Off the Old Style Mormons! Government Out of the Bedrooms!
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
EQUAL CYBERSPACE FOR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTAIL CONTENDERS?
COMMENTARY
IN THE CASE OF ONE GOVERNOR MITT “FLIP-FLOP” ROMNEY
OF MASSACHUSETTS
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
This writer has recently taken some flack for going mainly after Democratic Party politicians. Well, what of it. This writer has not hidden his belief that the Democratic Party is not progressive and therefore is an obstacle to the formation of a workers party. However many people still do not believe that proposition. Thus, the struggle is mainly against those illusions.
Moreover, does anyone seriously want to argue that there is anything progressive about the Bush Republican party? Oh, yes, I forgot about those two “log cabin “ Republicans- but they do not count because they never read the history of the Republican Party after the Civil War and Lincoln’s time. Furthermore, I thought I covered the Republican Party in recent blog when I argued that Anne Coulter should be the unopposed Republican standard bearer- she is the soul of the Republican Party. Now I can announce that Senator Lieberman should run as her Vice-President in a National Disunity Party. In any case, to placate any disgruntled readers here’s my take on one punitive Republican presidential candidate- Massachusetts Governor Mitt (Does anyone have a real name like that?) Romney. This promises to be short and sweet.
Governor Romney stands for the proposition that in Massachusetts, at least, Democratic Senator John Kerry is not the only “flip-flop” presidential candidate as Romney has scampered to turn all his previously supported positions around, for example on abortion, in order to go after the main chance. And the main chance is to placate the right wing (the only wing) of the Republican Party. Yes, indeed this boy has the “fire in the belly”. However, it must be something in the water about this flip-flop thing among the bourgeois politicians of Massachusetts.
Governor Romney also stands for the proposition that competence (or the appearance of it) should get one far in politics. This is based most recently on his leadership around the Boston “Big Dig” tragedy and fiasco. In short, the ability to tell people that Elmer’s Glue is not a good way to keep a tunnel together is suppose to add fuel to his bid for the presidency. Please.
Actually the most interesting thing about Governor Romney is not about him. As most readers probably are aware Massachusetts, through its judiciary, has declared that gay marriage is a state constitutional right. Governor Romney and other Neanderthals oppose this right and have supported efforts recently to put through a vote for constitutional change. In opposition, gay rights activists staged a protest demonstration. At that demonstration I noticed one interesting sign. The gist of the slogan was that Governor Romney’s Mormon great-grandfather has five wives and the gay sign holder only wanted one. Now Great-Grandpa Romney is a man I would want to meet. Talk about executive ability. The great-grandson is a punk in that league. Step aside, sonny.
I told you this was going to be short and sweet- Enough said.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
IN THE CASE OF ONE GOVERNOR MITT “FLIP-FLOP” ROMNEY
OF MASSACHUSETTS
FORGET DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS AND GREENS- BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
This writer has recently taken some flack for going mainly after Democratic Party politicians. Well, what of it. This writer has not hidden his belief that the Democratic Party is not progressive and therefore is an obstacle to the formation of a workers party. However many people still do not believe that proposition. Thus, the struggle is mainly against those illusions.
Moreover, does anyone seriously want to argue that there is anything progressive about the Bush Republican party? Oh, yes, I forgot about those two “log cabin “ Republicans- but they do not count because they never read the history of the Republican Party after the Civil War and Lincoln’s time. Furthermore, I thought I covered the Republican Party in recent blog when I argued that Anne Coulter should be the unopposed Republican standard bearer- she is the soul of the Republican Party. Now I can announce that Senator Lieberman should run as her Vice-President in a National Disunity Party. In any case, to placate any disgruntled readers here’s my take on one punitive Republican presidential candidate- Massachusetts Governor Mitt (Does anyone have a real name like that?) Romney. This promises to be short and sweet.
Governor Romney stands for the proposition that in Massachusetts, at least, Democratic Senator John Kerry is not the only “flip-flop” presidential candidate as Romney has scampered to turn all his previously supported positions around, for example on abortion, in order to go after the main chance. And the main chance is to placate the right wing (the only wing) of the Republican Party. Yes, indeed this boy has the “fire in the belly”. However, it must be something in the water about this flip-flop thing among the bourgeois politicians of Massachusetts.
Governor Romney also stands for the proposition that competence (or the appearance of it) should get one far in politics. This is based most recently on his leadership around the Boston “Big Dig” tragedy and fiasco. In short, the ability to tell people that Elmer’s Glue is not a good way to keep a tunnel together is suppose to add fuel to his bid for the presidency. Please.
Actually the most interesting thing about Governor Romney is not about him. As most readers probably are aware Massachusetts, through its judiciary, has declared that gay marriage is a state constitutional right. Governor Romney and other Neanderthals oppose this right and have supported efforts recently to put through a vote for constitutional change. In opposition, gay rights activists staged a protest demonstration. At that demonstration I noticed one interesting sign. The gist of the slogan was that Governor Romney’s Mormon great-grandfather has five wives and the gay sign holder only wanted one. Now Great-Grandpa Romney is a man I would want to meet. Talk about executive ability. The great-grandson is a punk in that league. Step aside, sonny.
I told you this was going to be short and sweet- Enough said.
THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)