It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: icanteven
Fact: There has been and continues to be systemic discrimination against the communities that Abrams points out.
But the question is, should there be justice metted out on behalf of Americans who have been terrorized by the state based on characteristics of a group?
LGBT Americans were deprived of their inalienable right to marry until recently.
No right was granted by the court.
It was always there; the court merely recognized it.
But the state disenfranchised LGBT people and deprived them the ability to exercise their right to marry.
We demand justice.
originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: Metallicus
Sure. The Equality Act is next. It would amend the civil rights act to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes.
originally posted by: seeker1963
I understand why those of you who are attracted to the same sex fought for marriage rights. It was over insurance with employers. I agree with that. So yes, you guys/gals/zees got a win.
My bitch is why does any human being have to ask the STATES permission to get married?
A marriage license is issued by the Recorder of Deeds in each Missouri county and is valid only in Missouri. Marriage license applicants are not required to be be Missouri residents. Both must appear in person before the recorder of deeds or a deputy recorder and present valid identification containing date of birth, along with a Social Security card, to apply for a marriage license. Fees for a marriage license and copies may vary by county.
originally posted by: DanDanDat
originally posted by: Thejaybird
To say that "Too few people in this country are the perpetrators or victims of anything worthy of paying any type of repercussions" is missing the point. The point is that this country, through its own, intentional volition, has oppressed people of color since its inception. As such, in order to repair the relationship, reparations are due to the oppressed. Make no bones about it; the people that were oppressed at the beginning of the American story, are the people who are still being oppressed today.
I would argue I am not missing the point at all. I just don't buy into your overly simplistic view of this nation and who lives here.
Once again who gets paid these repetitions? Not all "people of color" (which is quite a broud defintion) have experienced the same level of oppression. Clearly they don't all deserve the same compensation.
... and not all "people of no color" are complicit in the oppression that has taken place.
Don't get me wrong there are definitely pools of wealth that are tainted by wrong doing and there are descendants of people who deserve a portion of that wealth as reperations. But since you could not possibly structure any coherent tax law that targets/benefits these small groups of people you will never see reperations paid.
The indigenous people had their land taken from them by force. Black people were brought here in chains and sold into slavery to benefit the white slaveholders of their time. The leaders of their time pushed the indigenous people on to reservations. The leaders of their time continued to keep black people from advancing through the Jim Crow kleptocracy and, later, by creating FHA regulations that disallowed them from "moving up" via the free market of real estate.
Excellent recap of history... and if you can create tax law that garnishes wealth from "The leaders of their time" and redistributes it the oppressed equitably* you might have something. But I would expect the logistics of such laws would be impossible to administer.
* keeping it simple; the descendants of "people brought here in chains and sold into slavery" would logical deserve more compensation than people who have been victims of "FHA regulations" ... they aren't all the same people... not by a lot.
... also there are groups of white people who have been systematically opposed by "The leaders of their time" over the course of our nations history; do they not deserve some recognition?
Logistically, it is quite simple: the government created the problem, so the government should be the entity to make reparations.
I don't know about you, but I am fine with my tax dollars going towards this, especially if it can be the first step in making amends with the folks who have lived their entire existence in the shadow of oppression.
Since my familiar wethly is both very much younger and in no way directly attributed to any of the oppressive acts you listed above I can tell you unequivocally that I would have a problem with my wealth being garnished as any "first" or "last" step. I can pay these people my sympathies, but I will not willingly pay for sins that my family did not create nor directly benefite from*.
In fact I could make a pretty good claim that my family should be counted on the side of the "oppressed" rather than the side of "The leaders of their time" .... "The leaders of their time" might look and talk a lot like you, I see no similarities between them and me.
*a simplistic argument can be made that by simply living in society I benefit from all the wrongs that went into building that society... but again that is a simplistic argument and the counter would be; so too does the indigenous person
alive today benefit from the society built in part on those wrongs.
So again even if we can agree that someone deserves to pay and receive some type of reperations; we will never agree as a nation who those people are ... nor could we hope to lagistcaly carry out the fair redistribution of wealth. It's a pie in the sky thought.
... I would even go as far as to say it might be a dangerous thought; in that the more time and effort we waist on it the less time and effort we are putting into moving forward as a society.
Much better we spend our energies finding ways to end any oppression, against any group of people, that still exist to day and build systems that guard against it in the future.
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: Metallicus
Sure. The Equality Act is next. It would amend the civil rights act to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes.
Further eroding, perverting and destroying the social fabric that holds our nation together.
You people won't be satisfied until 'England prevails' here in the USA.
originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: tanstaafl
I don't know where you get the idea that marriage licenses aren't required by law in order to get married, but here in Missouri you certainly have to have one.
And the marriage has to be performed by a minister, judge, or "[marriages] may also be solemnized by a religious society, religious institution, or religious organization of this state, according to the regulations and customs of the society, institution or organization, when either party to the marriage to be solemnized is a member of such society, institution or organization."
From the Missouri government site:
originally posted by: Thejaybird
Seriously? "You people" ?!? It is 2019.Your way of thinking is, at best, outdated.
We have progressed as a society. Sorry you did not keep up. And, no...you have no response to that.
Your way of thinking has been moved on from. To quote Harlan Ellison: "You do not have a right to your opinion. You have a right to your informed opinion. Nobody has the right to be ignorant".
Marriage in the United States sees between 40 and 50% of them end in divorce. You don't see that as an "erosion, perversion, and destruction" of the social fabric in this country?
Thejaybird
Why go straight to taxes to serve as reparations? There are a multitude of budget line items that can be cut to make up for the difference. My goodness, we could pull troops from the 150 countries that they are in to make up for the difference.
Redistribution of wealth is not what is being discussed here. Reparations are. They are not the same thing, nor do they come from the same place.
And, to be accurate, "freedom" was a "pie in the sky" idea when this country was formed.
As a nation, if we are to be honest, we owe reparations to the indigenous people and black people. They are the two collective entities that have been most affected by faulty policy from a historic perspective.