Kvatch Konsiders - The GOP's Hatred of the American Dream

What is the 'Amercian Dream'? The notion that you can improve your economic status through hard work and that your children will have better, more prosperous life than you, right? But...from attacking the people pursuing it to clamping down on socio-economic mobility, the GOP demonstrates their hatred of the American Dream.

Look at the GOP's "hot issues": Gay marriage and immigration. Now I submit to you that no one is pursuing the American Dream with more gusto than homosexuals and immigrants. The latter is obvious and has always been the case. Immigrants from Mexico, India, the Middle-east, and Oceania are getting jobs, buying houses, and raising up "a mess 'o kids" with a zeal that crusty mainline anglos can't touch. And when it comes to socio-economic mobility, nobody is more mobile than your average gay couple. They practically keep Home Depot, Pottery Barn, and a half-a-dozen other retailers in business...single handedly!

But where are the economic clamps on mobility applied? Smack against middle and lower-middle class immigrants. Where is discrimination in marriage, employment, inheritence, etc... applied? Smack against homosexuals.

I think the evidence of where the GOP stands, speaks for itself.


They are reaching out to anything they think might save their asses. I thought they would be history in November but now I'm not so sure. Seems a lot of people care more about what the hell their gay neighbor does than the good of our country.

Trying to write fast before blogger conks out again.
Trying to write fast before blogger conks out again.

Know what you mean. This was supposed to be yesterday afternoon's post.

But to the point, with very few exceptions, most of my gay friends don't want anything more than to find the right guy, buy a house, settle down, and in probably 50% of cases raise some kids. And most of them...would do a hell of a lot better job than I could do.
They're against people other than them achieving the American Dream. A few thousand less here and there and the next thing you know you're not a gazillionaire anymore, but only a mere mortal billionaire. Intolerable!
Is it not more about bully tactics than issues? Conservatives always focus attack on the weakest, or apparently weakest, groups.
Immigrants, particularly the latest wave, are a great target, they have no leverage at all.
The gay thing is curious, because their only weakness, as a group, is that they are not right wing fundamentalists.
In fact, numerically and economically pink power is highly underestimated. Now they've just got to get out and vote!
I agree with you on the discrimination issue - homosexuals are being discriminated against - mostly in the marriage issue. I think I read someplace that there are over 1000 legal rights/benefits to being married (eg. if one spouse dies, the $ goes to the living spouse without taxation, etc). The fact that homosexuals can't get married (except for in MA) means that they can never take advantage in these benefits - ever.

On a more radical note, it would be interesting to debate the idea of government not recognizing marriages altogether - basically, take away public policy of marriage. If one wants to get married, they do it in a church, synagogue, secular service, etc and it has nothing to do with the government. Marriage would be a commitment between 2 or more people - but it would be personal - no government involvement. And you take away the government-sponsored benefits - because each person is his or her own person - just like single people. Because why should married people get more benefits/rights than single people (gay or straight)? Just a thought that would need LOTS of debate and research. You would have to research the social and economic impact of such a radical policy shift. I know this is so radical that it will never get to the stage of consideration - but it is intriguing.
Bigotry is easy to spot. It's those who speak it behind closed doors that make the work of freedom spreading difficult.
In fact, numerically and economically pink power is highly underestimated. Now they've just got to get out and vote!

Cartledge, I think that would be right if it weren't the case that the gay commnities are extremely concentrated.

Elsa, it's an interesting idea. My guess is that benefits for married couples are always tied to the child-rearing issue, but there's no reason that it has to be limited to. Why not remove the bias?
Windspike, come on freedom spreading is easy. You just need lots of tanks and bombs. Hey maybe that would work for our gay communities? Spread a little freedom by bom--oh crap--what am I saying?
You'd better write a disclaimer so the feds won't get suspicious about what you just said! I know I'm shocked.
Elsa and Kvatch--Belgium doesn't really "marry" people--you go to a religious official for that. What they do is give you a license for a civil union--it a contract telling you how the law views your assets, any offspring, etc.

Gay marriage is legal here--and has been for a while. "Marriage" here is a legal issue, morals are for the Church (we are officially a Catholic country).
Sothis, welcome. I would think that many countries in the EU have this seperation between the civil union and the church ceremony--quite confident that France does things this way. Quite a sensible system IMHO.

Sumo, which what I just said? If I took to writing disclaimers, I'd be doing it all day...instead of blogging. :-)

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link