There’s been a lot of comparisons between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement.  Being in a interracial relationship, I can’t help but relate it to the race-based restrictions on marriage that existed in many states until 1967, when the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia.  This year, on June 12, the anniversary of the decision, which some people have called “interracial couples day” or “Loving Day,” I actually did feel a profound appreciation for the ability to marry anyone I choose, and very aware that only 40 years ago, I wouldn’t have had that freedom in every state.  And since I’m bi-racial myself, prior to Loving, my parents might not have been able to get married, and I might never have been born.

I can’t think of anyone I know who would look me in the eye today and say they believed in any limitations on my rights, as a heterosexual woman, to marry anyone I choose.  However, I do know many, many people who would be willing to deny that right to a gay person with the straightest of faces.  And add, at least in their mind, that they are probably going to hell.  They may believe the Bible says it’s wrong to be gay, but guess what?  50 years ago they also said the Bible said it was wrong for people of different races to marry.  And before that, that the Bible justified salvery.

I should wrap this up before I cry for the umpteenth time this eletion week, but I just want to shout at the top of my lungs… don’t you see?!  How don’t you not see?!!!  Future generations will judge us harshly for this, and rightly so.

I totally forgot about this – or you know, mentally repressed it, whatever – until I saw a posts on Feministe and Feministing about it.

Don’t put my health in air quotes, John McCain. First, air quotes? Really? Secondly, on the off chance you actually become president, your VP choice doesn’t give me the luxury of showing similar disregard for your health!

Update:  More blacklash after the jump.

Via Feminsting, two women discuss on Hardball, and  Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards on HuffPo.

“John McCain needed a miracle in his final debate with Barack Obama on Wednesday night, a miracle that would wipe away McCain’s deficit in the polls and reenergize his flagging campaign.

He did not get one. The clouds did not part. Heavenly choirs were not heard. Instead, the American public heard angry attacks from McCain.”

Roger Simon, Politico

What I remember before I fell asleep:

McCain: Barack Obama will raise your taxes.

Obama: I will not raise taxes for 95% of Americans.

McCain: Barack Obama will raise your taxes.

Obama: I will not raise taxes for 95% of Americans.

(repeat)

I feel asleep just as things were getting good.  If I remember correctly, McCain was accusing Obama of spending the majority of his time in the Illinois State Legislature trying his bestest to kill teh babiez.  And Obama was just about to tell him how he’s full of shit.  Luckily, through the magic of TiVo, I can finish it now.  I’ll update!

Update: Obama is a little weak on abortion.  Boyfriend and I debate whether he really believes what he’s saying, or whether he has to say it.  Relying on the hope Barack has instilled in our hearts, we choose to believe he has to say what he’s saying.

Update:  I love the idea of trading a year of public service for college tuition credit.  I would have been all over that as an undergraduate.  B says I shouldn’t worry about how I’m going to pay for my children’s college education, because the world will have ended by then.

Update:  Closing statement was great.  Tie, not so sure.  Michelle’s dress on the other hand – awesome.

Because of this I was really glad to see Frank Rich’s editorial in the Times today.  He describes what’s been going on in such a thoughtful and comprehensive way.  One thing that struck me about this editorial is the overwhelming number of hyperlinks.  The law student in me appreciates a man who cites his sources, something the Right seems to have a hard time doing these days.

While you can’t believe a word that comes out of John McCain’s mouth these days, I really want to believe this economist from the University of Chicago:

“The idea is that banking is so central to the American economy that the government is justified in virtually nationalizing much of the industry in order to save us from a potential depression.

There are two faulty assumptions here. First, saving America’s banks won’t save the economy. And second, the economy doesn’t really need saving. It’s stronger than we think.

Bear with me. I know that most everyone has been saying for a couple of weeks that something has to be done; a banking crisis could quickly become a wider crisis, pulling the rest of us down. For this reason, the Wall Street bailout is supposed to be better than no plan at all.

Too bad this line of thinking is seriously flawed. The non-financial sectors of our economy will not suffer much from even a prolonged banking crisis, because the general economic importance of banks has been highly exaggerated.

Although banks perform an essential economic function — bringing together investors and savers — they are not the only institutions that can do this. Pension funds, university endowments, venture capitalists and corporations all bring money to new investment projects without banks playing any essential role. The average corporation gets about a quarter of its investment funds from the profits it has after paying dividends — and could double or even triple that amount by cutting its dividend, if necessary.

What’s more, it’s not as if banking services are about to vanish. When a bank or a group of banks go under, the economywide demand for their services creates a strong profit motive for new banks to enter the marketplace and for existing banks to expand their operations. (Bank of America and J. P. Morgan Chase are already doing this.)

It’s important to keep in mind, too, that the financial sector has had a long history of fluctuating without any correlated fluctuations in the rest of the economy. The stock market crashed in 1987 — in 1929 proportions — but there was no decade-long Depression that followed. Economic research has repeatedly demonstrated that financial-sector gyrations like these are hardly connected to non-financial sector performance. Studies have shown that economic growth cannot be forecast by the expected rates of return on government bonds, stocks or savings deposits.

It turns out that John McCain, who was widely mocked for saying that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong,” was actually right. We’re in a financial crisis, not an economic crisis. We’re not entering a second Great Depression.”

I know a lot has been written about this, but every time I hear the word “elite” or “elitism” used as an epithet, I cringe.  The political world is the only place “elite” is something bad.  The Special Forces are elite.  And thank God.  You couldn’t send a bunch of hacks out to do their job.  But somehow in politics, education at great schools, intellect, and the ability to see a complex and nuanced world (which may or may not include the eating of arugula and the ability to correctly pronounce “Pakistan”) are considered a detriment by many.  Like a lot of people I know, I’ve dedicated so much of my life to education and learning, and it’s terrifying to see that decried every time I turn on my television.

I understand that the left and the right have our differences.  But I don’t understand a whole side of the debate displaying the scorn we’ve seen in the last few years, and in this campaign in particular, for intellect.  David Brooks, conservative columist at the New York Times, describes how we went from the intellectual Republicans of days past to – Sarah Palin.

Which is why I was glad to see this awesome Gail Collins column in the New York Times yesterday.  By McCain standards, many of us have a guilt-by-association-worthy connection.  McCain included.

Note: Elisabeth Hasselbeck makes me want to tear out my hair.  Why the hell do I watch The View?

I wasn’t disappointed.  Correctly pronouncing foreign countries.  How elitist of him.

Oh, and via Think Progress, aparently Gen. David Petraeus uses the same “exotic pronounciation.”