Some thoughts. They are related, so bear with me, please. *Since much of this is either a direct quote or, a group of thoughts in a conversation, please think of Z as a co-author*
The most anti-affirmative action person I know is Z. That’s probably not, unless you knew her, what you would expect from someone who happens to be gay.
In her words, “I was briefly in a convo today about someone wanting to get LGBT ambassadors established…one of my political groups I follow. I don’t want LGBT ambassadors. I want the best PERSON for every job to be picked for the job. Screw affirmative action. If you’re good at something it shouldn’t matter. What color your skin, where you come from, who you love, what you believe in, what you faith is or is not, if you are the best PERSON, the best HUMAN for the job you get it. If you’re gay and you suck at the job, you shouldn’t get it. If you’re Belgain and you suck at the job you shouldn’t get it. Black white gay straight, pagan shinto, who cares? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr had it all figured out. Judge people not by the color of their skin but, on the content of their character.Goes for orientation and faith and so much more. Human.”
You see, she doesn’t want to be “protected” by the USSC. Sounds like heresy. Nothing more than “equal protection under the law”. You see she, and I, believe that the 14th Amendment should be applied to everyone. Section 1 reads, “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.”
Like I’ve said, and it is and will be a recurring theme, “equal is equal”. Treat everyone the same under the law. Period. It is not a Liberal/Conservative issue. It is not a male/female issue. It is not a gay/straight issue. Either we follow the Constitution for EVERYONE or we follow it for NO ONE.
Having said all of that, I do not treat everyone equally. Outside of my wife and work, Z gets more of my energy than anyone else. There are a couple of reasons. First, because she is Z. Second, because she is gay. What? Yeppers, because of that I write this page. If she weren’t, this page probably would not exist. At least, not in its current form with its current topic. You see, after 120, not counting this one, posts, I’ve spent a few hundred hours either writing or trying to figure out what will be written. My wife is the only other person that gets that much of my time. *editorial, I mean this in NO WAY as a complaint. If I didn’t want to do this, I would not. Period* Sure, there are other sites, pages, groups, and blogs that advocate LBGT issues and rights. There are people that make a living by working for organizations that support the issues. On the other hand, there is one Z’s Rights page. Welcome to it. I’m not saying that I like Z because she is gay. I like her because of the person she is. There is a place in my heart, a non-romantic place mind you, that is hers. It just so happens that I advocate for her, specifically, because she is gay. That kind of doesn’t fit the previous. On the other hand, it fits it because, if the “content of (her) character” wasn’t worth it, I would not be doing this.
There is the dilemma, where do we draw the line? I assume that no one is altruistic. I assign my motives to others. I expect that everyone has a personal agenda because, I do. For what it’s worth, this thought, too, was a part of the same conversation that prompted this post. We believe that everyone is like us. They are not. I expect that no one that advocates for the rights of an other person is doing it selflessly. That might or, might not, be true. There might be some totally unselfish individuals. I expect that Gun Rights advocates do it for themselves. I assume that the Environmental Movement is not doing it for the environment as much as they, personally, don’t want to eat, breathe, and drink junk or GMO’s. That’s fine with me. When an issue is personal, we are more passionate about it.
How to bring this to an end?
I will continue to advocate for Z. I will continue to be a “support group” of one. *editorial, I know that I am not her only ally or friend. That’s fine. She’s great. I am glad I’m not her only support* Yes, I realize that is selfish. I don’t really care. No, Z is not the only gay person that is in my family and group of friends. By getting equal protection for Z, it also has to happen for them.
I will, also, continue to expect that some of my ways of thinking apply to everyone. I will expect that activism, no matter the cause, has, at its root, personal motive. In fact, I hope that it does.
I will wish, even though I didn’t mention it above, that people will be able to separate their religious views from their societal views. Meaning, even if they think they have religious grounds to object to an issue, they will realize that the Constitution is not a religious construct but, as set of rules for secular government. That the same Constitution that protects their faith, voice, and Liberty also affords those protections to those that they disagree with.
I wish that rationality would break out. That we would base our opinions of people on who they are, their capabilities, their integrity, and the “content of their character” and not on who they choose to love.