Special Report: Yearender 2008
By Sportswriter Gao Peng
BEIJING, Dec. 24 (Xinhua) -- China capped the most splendid year in its sports history when it concluded with a bang its debut as Olympic host in 2008.
After 16 days of near-flawless organization and first-class athletic achievement, International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge called the Beijing Olympics "truly exceptional", validating China's seven-year efforts not only to stage a great Games but to use it as a gateway to gaining international recognition.
"It has been a long journey since our decision in July 2001 to bring the Olympic Games to China, but there can now be no doubt that we made the right choice," Rogge said on the final day of the Games in August.
Yet the run-up to the Beijing Olympics was not plain sailing, especially in the last few months before the opening ceremony.
An 8.0-magnitude earthquake hit southwest China's Sichuan Province in May, killing more than 80,000 people, and violent protesters disrupted the Olympic torch relay in France and other countries. In addition, there had been persistent concerns about Beijing's air pollution and the IOC initially said some outdoor endurance events might be re-scheduled in case of unhealthy air conditions.
To Beijing's credit, however, everything worked perfectly during the period of Games time, from the special Olympic bus lines bringing visitors in from around the city, to the thousands of smiling volunteers in blue-and-white uniforms offering help in different languages, to the tickets with embedded RFID chips that allowed for quick computerized scanning and to the clean skies that reminded many European visitors of Mediterranean conditions.
"The Beijing Games is testimony to the fact that the world has its trust rested in China," said Liu Qi, president of the Beijing Organizing Committee of the Games. "The Chinese people, filled with enthusiasm, have honored the commitments they solemnly made."
These Games have attracted the most participants -- from a record 204 countries and regions -- and according to the IOC, television audiences achieved record high in most major markets and the games' presence online was by far the most extensive ever. The opening ceremony alone was seen by 1.2 billion people around the globe.
Rogge believed the largest extravaganza in Olympic history brought greater global understanding of once-reclusive China.
"Through the Games, the world has learned more about China, and China learned more about the world," he said.
For 100 years the Olympic dream has been a national obsession, as historical archives showed that shortly after the 1908 Games in London, a magazine based in north China's port city of Tianjin published an article and first raised the question: When will China be able to host the Olympic Games?
And for the past seven years the Olympics has been a driving force to push China forward. If nothing else, some of the 40 billion U.S. dollars invested in the Beijing 2008 preparations will remain in the form of the three new subway lines, a new airport terminal and sports facilities built for the Games. The thousands of young, smiling volunteers will take their warmth and enthusiasm back to their daily lives.
The Olympics also offered China another chance to adopt international practice. IOC officials, foreign administrative teams and foreign sponsors were engaged extensively in the preparations. From the design of the state-of-the-art Bird's Nest, to the broadcasting and administrative work, they helped improve the standard of the Games.
With the Olympic baton now passed on to London, the legacy will last well after.
"The Games gave us a more open and mature attitude," said Professor Hu Jiqing from Nanjing University. "This attitude featured magnanimity, tolerance and pluralism."
"More importantly, it embodies a more confident nation," added Hu.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
In 2008, China impresses world in unprecedented way
Special Report: Yearender 2008
BEIJING, Dec. 24 (Xinhua) -- In 2008, the world has come to know China with the hitherto unprecedented scope, depth, and first-hand perception.
It has been an unusual year for China -- it faced up to unprecedented challenges brought about by the snow disaster in the south and the calamitous earthquake in the southwest, and took great delight in successfully hosting a spectacular Olympics gala and accomplishing the historic feat by completing the nation's first spacewalk.
In a year when the world has been undergoing a profound change, China has opened its doors wider with broad-mindedness, increased confidence and a stronger determination to improve itself, and shouldered a greater responsibility in global political and financial affairs.
China and the rest of the world have become more closely linked. As Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi put it: "Historic changes are taking place in the relationship between China and the world as a whole."
Riding out Difficulties, China Held in Higher Esteem by World
The expected and unexpected events that happened in China this year have drawn global attention.
On May 12, an 8.0-magnitude earthquake jolted southwest China, causing huge casualties and massive destruction. United as one and standing up to combat the disaster with prompt and effective rescue efforts, China won sympathy and respect from the world.
On Aug. 8, the Beijing Olympiad captivated some 2 billion spectators and TV audience worldwide with its splendid opening ceremony, enabling them to enjoy a charming night that epitomizes China's 5,000-year civilization.
The Beijing Olympiad drew a record number of 204 sports delegations that cover the widest ever geographical areas in the Games' history, and was given heavy coverage by world media. This has enabled the world to see not only a "truly exceptional" Olympiad, but also a more open and colorful China.
Then China impressed the world again by launching the Shenzhou VII spacecraft into space and accomplishing its maiden space walk. The feat has made China the third country in the world to stage extra-vehicular activity and the only developing country capable of manned space exploration.
Commenting on Chinese taikonaut Zhai Zhigang's space walk, Reuters had this to say: "Zhai's brief but historic outing in a Chinese-designed space suit... capped a year in which the country has both coped with the tragedy of the devastating Sichuan earthquake and reveled in the Beijing Olympics."
BEIJING, Dec. 24 (Xinhua) -- In 2008, the world has come to know China with the hitherto unprecedented scope, depth, and first-hand perception.
It has been an unusual year for China -- it faced up to unprecedented challenges brought about by the snow disaster in the south and the calamitous earthquake in the southwest, and took great delight in successfully hosting a spectacular Olympics gala and accomplishing the historic feat by completing the nation's first spacewalk.
In a year when the world has been undergoing a profound change, China has opened its doors wider with broad-mindedness, increased confidence and a stronger determination to improve itself, and shouldered a greater responsibility in global political and financial affairs.
China and the rest of the world have become more closely linked. As Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi put it: "Historic changes are taking place in the relationship between China and the world as a whole."
Riding out Difficulties, China Held in Higher Esteem by World
The expected and unexpected events that happened in China this year have drawn global attention.
On May 12, an 8.0-magnitude earthquake jolted southwest China, causing huge casualties and massive destruction. United as one and standing up to combat the disaster with prompt and effective rescue efforts, China won sympathy and respect from the world.
On Aug. 8, the Beijing Olympiad captivated some 2 billion spectators and TV audience worldwide with its splendid opening ceremony, enabling them to enjoy a charming night that epitomizes China's 5,000-year civilization.
The Beijing Olympiad drew a record number of 204 sports delegations that cover the widest ever geographical areas in the Games' history, and was given heavy coverage by world media. This has enabled the world to see not only a "truly exceptional" Olympiad, but also a more open and colorful China.
Then China impressed the world again by launching the Shenzhou VII spacecraft into space and accomplishing its maiden space walk. The feat has made China the third country in the world to stage extra-vehicular activity and the only developing country capable of manned space exploration.
Commenting on Chinese taikonaut Zhai Zhigang's space walk, Reuters had this to say: "Zhai's brief but historic outing in a Chinese-designed space suit... capped a year in which the country has both coped with the tragedy of the devastating Sichuan earthquake and reveled in the Beijing Olympics."
New Zealand minister on China's great achievements in reform, opening up
by Huang Xingwei
WELLINGTON, Dec. 24 (Xinhua) -- Pansy Wong, New Zealand's newly appointed minister for ethnic affairs and women's affairs, says great changes have taken place in China since it launched reform and opening up 30 years ago.
Pansy also said in a recent interview with Xinhua that living standards in China have been greatly improved during that time.
Pansy was born in Shanghai, grew up in Hong Kong and moved to New Zealand in 1974. She became the first ethnic Chinese member of New Zealand's parliament in 1996.
She was appointed the country's first Asian minister holding the cabinet position of ethnic and women's affairs after the National Party won the general elections on Nov. 8.
Pansy told Xinhua that the Chinese government attaches great importance to infrastructure construction and urban planning.
"Their urban planning are quite successful, even taking account of the development in the next 50 years," she said.
New Zealand and China signed a free trade agreement in April, a first FTA China signed with a developed country.
Pansy said bilateral cooperation has huge potential and broad prospects.
"New Zealand boasts advantages in creative industry, environment protection, farming and animal husbandry, while China has huge markets. The two countries can cooperate in such areas," she said.
WELLINGTON, Dec. 24 (Xinhua) -- Pansy Wong, New Zealand's newly appointed minister for ethnic affairs and women's affairs, says great changes have taken place in China since it launched reform and opening up 30 years ago.
Pansy also said in a recent interview with Xinhua that living standards in China have been greatly improved during that time.
Pansy was born in Shanghai, grew up in Hong Kong and moved to New Zealand in 1974. She became the first ethnic Chinese member of New Zealand's parliament in 1996.
She was appointed the country's first Asian minister holding the cabinet position of ethnic and women's affairs after the National Party won the general elections on Nov. 8.
Pansy told Xinhua that the Chinese government attaches great importance to infrastructure construction and urban planning.
"Their urban planning are quite successful, even taking account of the development in the next 50 years," she said.
New Zealand and China signed a free trade agreement in April, a first FTA China signed with a developed country.
Pansy said bilateral cooperation has huge potential and broad prospects.
"New Zealand boasts advantages in creative industry, environment protection, farming and animal husbandry, while China has huge markets. The two countries can cooperate in such areas," she said.
Pakistani senator deems China's reform policy "remarkable"
By Li Zhongfa, Li Jingchen
ISLAMABAD, Dec. 24 (Xinhua) -- Syed Mushahid Hussain, chairman of Pakistan's Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, on Tuesday spoke highly of China's reform and opening-up launched three decades ago, saying the policy has benefited the Chinese people and the world at large.
"The transformation of China, which took place in a peaceful manner, has benefited the Chinese people and affected the peace and stability in Asia and world," said Mushahid in an interview with Xinhua.
The year of 2008 marks the 30th anniversary of China's reform and opening-up drive, commonly regarded as a watershed in China's development.
The decision to open up the once sealed off country and reform its struggling economy was made at the 3rd plenary session of the 11th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), which started on Dec. 18, 1978.
The policy, pioneered by late leader Deng Xiaoping, has turned the once poverty-stricken country into one of the world's largest economies.
"Though the reform and opening-up, China has lifted about 400 million people out of poverty, who now have new quality of life. That's a remarkable achievement," Mushahid said.
Mushahid, also secretary general of the opposition party Pakistan Muslim League-Qauid (PML-Q), first visited China in the 1970s and has paid many visits since then.
Mushahid was impressed by the tremendous changes in the past three decades, especially in the aspects of people's life, infrastructure, high technology, and even language.
"At that time in 1972, very few people spoke English. But now it's very common language," said Mushahid.
Mushahid attributed China's achievements to the CPC's leadership, saying the party has played a "unique" role in bring "the world's most populous country" to the world's fourth largest economy.
"The ideology of the Communist Party of China is based on humanity, not based on control or dominance," said Mushahid, adding that China has not used "imperialistic power" but pursued peaceful development.
"The Chinese society is very pluralistic. China gives rights to the minorities and different communities, who all have opportunity to participate in the process of China," he said.
Mushahid also termed the "one country, two systems" policy as "unique contribution to modern history," saying Hong Kong and Macao returned to China in 1997 and 1999 respectively not by force, but "by diplomacy, negotiations and agreements."
With regard to China's stimulus package plan to revive economy in the face of current global economy, Mushahid expressed admiration for China's contribution to the world's development.
"The stability of China's economy sends a message of stability to the Asian and world economy," he said.
"We share the success of China as a neighbor. We want to learn from China's example, and we also want to benefit from what China had done in the past years," Mushahid said
ISLAMABAD, Dec. 24 (Xinhua) -- Syed Mushahid Hussain, chairman of Pakistan's Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, on Tuesday spoke highly of China's reform and opening-up launched three decades ago, saying the policy has benefited the Chinese people and the world at large.
"The transformation of China, which took place in a peaceful manner, has benefited the Chinese people and affected the peace and stability in Asia and world," said Mushahid in an interview with Xinhua.
The year of 2008 marks the 30th anniversary of China's reform and opening-up drive, commonly regarded as a watershed in China's development.
The decision to open up the once sealed off country and reform its struggling economy was made at the 3rd plenary session of the 11th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), which started on Dec. 18, 1978.
The policy, pioneered by late leader Deng Xiaoping, has turned the once poverty-stricken country into one of the world's largest economies.
"Though the reform and opening-up, China has lifted about 400 million people out of poverty, who now have new quality of life. That's a remarkable achievement," Mushahid said.
Mushahid, also secretary general of the opposition party Pakistan Muslim League-Qauid (PML-Q), first visited China in the 1970s and has paid many visits since then.
Mushahid was impressed by the tremendous changes in the past three decades, especially in the aspects of people's life, infrastructure, high technology, and even language.
"At that time in 1972, very few people spoke English. But now it's very common language," said Mushahid.
Mushahid attributed China's achievements to the CPC's leadership, saying the party has played a "unique" role in bring "the world's most populous country" to the world's fourth largest economy.
"The ideology of the Communist Party of China is based on humanity, not based on control or dominance," said Mushahid, adding that China has not used "imperialistic power" but pursued peaceful development.
"The Chinese society is very pluralistic. China gives rights to the minorities and different communities, who all have opportunity to participate in the process of China," he said.
Mushahid also termed the "one country, two systems" policy as "unique contribution to modern history," saying Hong Kong and Macao returned to China in 1997 and 1999 respectively not by force, but "by diplomacy, negotiations and agreements."
With regard to China's stimulus package plan to revive economy in the face of current global economy, Mushahid expressed admiration for China's contribution to the world's development.
"The stability of China's economy sends a message of stability to the Asian and world economy," he said.
"We share the success of China as a neighbor. We want to learn from China's example, and we also want to benefit from what China had done in the past years," Mushahid said
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
California’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional
When I was a teacher, I would often tell my students this hypothetical: “Our classroom has decided to form a new country and create a new government to run it. Now imagine that everyone in this class practices the same religion, except for two students.
History has shown that many nations have been involved in violent conflicts because of religious differences, and some are still engaged in such conflicts today. To eliminate this problem in our new nation, we are going to hold an election to decide what religion our citizens, and those who reside within our borders, can practice. Once we have a winner, all other religions will be banned.
Assuming that everyone will vote in accordance with their faith, it is obvious that two of your classmates will no longer be allowed to practice their religion. So my question is this: Since America is a democracy, why has such a vote never taken place?”
Usually, to my dismay, I would hear responses trumpeting the virtues of diversity and tolerance. But rarely did I hear the correct answer: Such a vote has never occurred in the United States because it is prohibited by the Bill of Rights.
What I wanted my students to understand is that America was created as a “democratic-republic,” where the “majority rules” in many instances, but not all. The nation’s founders determined that there are certain rights and liberties so fundamental to the individual that neither the government nor the majority can take them away. One of these, of course, is the right to “freedom of religion.”
The results of this freedom are evident. According to the book How the Great Religions Began, over two hundred denominations of Christianity exist in the United States. Clearly the outcry would be deafening if the followers of the most popular form of Christianity possessed the power to ban all others.
Yet today many of the minority sects of Christianity—that might not even exist if America had been created as a pure democracy—are hypocritically promoting the idea of “majority rule” when it comes to another fundamental right—the right to marry. This was in evidence during the November 2008 election, when many religious organizations in California successfully campaigned for the passage of “Proposition Eight.”
“Proposition Eight” banned same-sex marriages, which had been legal in California, via a constitutional amendment. But, in a paradox that is nonetheless true, this constitutional ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.
Just as the federal government has the United States Constitution, every American state has its own constitution. State Constitutions can provide more legal protection for the fundamental rights of their residents than the Federal Constitution requires, but they cannot provide less.
An example of how a State Constitution provides greater protection was shown in the case of a convicted drug dealer who, under state law, was sentenced to a long-term prison sentence. This individual challenged the law in federal court, arguing that its harsh penalties violated the Federal Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.”
The United States Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that while the punishment this law demanded was either “cruel,” or “unusual,” it was not both, and to be declared unconstitutional a law has to offend both prongs of the Eighth Amendment.
Fortunately for the defendant the Constitution of the State where he was convicted banned “cruel or unusual” punishment; therefore the challenged law only needed to offend one of these prongs to be declared unconstitutional. Since it had already been held to do so, the defendant’s sentence was overturned.
An example of how the Federal Constitution can provide more protection than State Constitutions occurred in the 2003 case of Lawrence vs. Texas, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that the “liberty” prong of the due process clause voided state sodomy laws that prohibited consenting adults from engaging in certain types of sexual activity.
The Lawrence decision was an anomaly for two reasons: first, it occurred within the confines of a legal system that has historically been loath to protect the liberty interests of gays and lesbians; second, it overturned Bowers vs. Hardwick, a case this same Court had decided just seventeen years earlier. Bowers had held that laws prohibiting certain types of sexual activity between consenting adults did not offend the Federal Constitution. When one considers that it took over half-a-century to overturn Plessy vs. Ferguson, the case that once made racial segregation the law of the land, the Court moved with remarkable speed.
Still, despite this progress, America remains a nation where gays and lesbians appear to be the last minorities who can be openly hated, ridiculed and maligned, even by those in power. Vice-presidential candidates Joseph Biden and Sarah Palin, in a debate conducted prior to the November 2008 election, did not hesitate to condemn gay marriage in front of a national television audience.
But would Biden and Palin have been equally at ease condemning interracial marriages, or marriages between people of different faiths? It is doubtful, because such condemnations would not be politically profitable in today’s environment. But just a few decades ago politicians were perfectly comfortable condemning interracial marriages as “abnormal” and “immoral.”
This changed in 1967, in the case of Loving v. Virginia, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriages violated the Federal Constitution. In its opinion the Court confirmed that marriage was “one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’” and that denial of this right can “deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”
This recognition of marriage as a fundamental right means that neither the government nor the majority can take it away, unless there is a “compelling reason” for doing so.
In the Lawrence decision, Justice Kennedy writes, “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression and certain intimate conduct.” Denying “equality of treatment” in these areas is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and private sectors.”
Yet gays and lesbians in California, and numerous other states, only enjoy three of the four freedoms that “liberty presumes.” They are conspicuously denied equality of treatment in the area of expression—the right to express love and commitment through the institution of marriage.
In overturning the Bowers decision, Kennedy noted that the Court committed a fundamental error when it confined its analysis strictly to the “sexual conduct” involved: “When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.... To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.”
This right to an enduring personal bond, and this acknowledgment that the motivations of gays and lesbians seeking to marry are not significantly different from heterosexuals seeking to marry, establishes that there is no legal basis, compelling, rational or otherwise, for the government to ban same-sex marriages. In fact, as reported by USA TODAY, heterosexual couples are increasingly choosing to cohabit rather than marry; thus it should be refreshing to learn that same-sex couples still place a great deal of importance on the institution of marriage.
The courts, when dealing with cases involving religious discrimination, never question the sincerity of one’s faith, nor does society question whether a man and woman are marrying for the “right” reasons. Why then should such litmus tests be required for same-sex marriages? Why is it not presumed that two people in love sincerely wish to spend the rest of their lives together?
The tragedy of American society, and indeed of all societies, is it is so easy to blame scapegoats for all social ills. Throughout American history people of different races, religions and ethnic backgrounds were often looked upon by the majority with fear and loathing, and thus had to struggle to gain the rights that others took for granted. Sadly, when it comes to the rights of gays and lesbians, the descendants of many of these people are now chanting “majority rules.”
Perhaps a constitutional amendment should be passed decreeing that those who seek to deny fundamental rights to others must sacrifice those same rights themselves. After all, as Abraham Lincoln said, “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”
History has shown that many nations have been involved in violent conflicts because of religious differences, and some are still engaged in such conflicts today. To eliminate this problem in our new nation, we are going to hold an election to decide what religion our citizens, and those who reside within our borders, can practice. Once we have a winner, all other religions will be banned.
Assuming that everyone will vote in accordance with their faith, it is obvious that two of your classmates will no longer be allowed to practice their religion. So my question is this: Since America is a democracy, why has such a vote never taken place?”
Usually, to my dismay, I would hear responses trumpeting the virtues of diversity and tolerance. But rarely did I hear the correct answer: Such a vote has never occurred in the United States because it is prohibited by the Bill of Rights.
What I wanted my students to understand is that America was created as a “democratic-republic,” where the “majority rules” in many instances, but not all. The nation’s founders determined that there are certain rights and liberties so fundamental to the individual that neither the government nor the majority can take them away. One of these, of course, is the right to “freedom of religion.”
The results of this freedom are evident. According to the book How the Great Religions Began, over two hundred denominations of Christianity exist in the United States. Clearly the outcry would be deafening if the followers of the most popular form of Christianity possessed the power to ban all others.
Yet today many of the minority sects of Christianity—that might not even exist if America had been created as a pure democracy—are hypocritically promoting the idea of “majority rule” when it comes to another fundamental right—the right to marry. This was in evidence during the November 2008 election, when many religious organizations in California successfully campaigned for the passage of “Proposition Eight.”
“Proposition Eight” banned same-sex marriages, which had been legal in California, via a constitutional amendment. But, in a paradox that is nonetheless true, this constitutional ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.
Just as the federal government has the United States Constitution, every American state has its own constitution. State Constitutions can provide more legal protection for the fundamental rights of their residents than the Federal Constitution requires, but they cannot provide less.
An example of how a State Constitution provides greater protection was shown in the case of a convicted drug dealer who, under state law, was sentenced to a long-term prison sentence. This individual challenged the law in federal court, arguing that its harsh penalties violated the Federal Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.”
The United States Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that while the punishment this law demanded was either “cruel,” or “unusual,” it was not both, and to be declared unconstitutional a law has to offend both prongs of the Eighth Amendment.
Fortunately for the defendant the Constitution of the State where he was convicted banned “cruel or unusual” punishment; therefore the challenged law only needed to offend one of these prongs to be declared unconstitutional. Since it had already been held to do so, the defendant’s sentence was overturned.
An example of how the Federal Constitution can provide more protection than State Constitutions occurred in the 2003 case of Lawrence vs. Texas, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that the “liberty” prong of the due process clause voided state sodomy laws that prohibited consenting adults from engaging in certain types of sexual activity.
The Lawrence decision was an anomaly for two reasons: first, it occurred within the confines of a legal system that has historically been loath to protect the liberty interests of gays and lesbians; second, it overturned Bowers vs. Hardwick, a case this same Court had decided just seventeen years earlier. Bowers had held that laws prohibiting certain types of sexual activity between consenting adults did not offend the Federal Constitution. When one considers that it took over half-a-century to overturn Plessy vs. Ferguson, the case that once made racial segregation the law of the land, the Court moved with remarkable speed.
Still, despite this progress, America remains a nation where gays and lesbians appear to be the last minorities who can be openly hated, ridiculed and maligned, even by those in power. Vice-presidential candidates Joseph Biden and Sarah Palin, in a debate conducted prior to the November 2008 election, did not hesitate to condemn gay marriage in front of a national television audience.
But would Biden and Palin have been equally at ease condemning interracial marriages, or marriages between people of different faiths? It is doubtful, because such condemnations would not be politically profitable in today’s environment. But just a few decades ago politicians were perfectly comfortable condemning interracial marriages as “abnormal” and “immoral.”
This changed in 1967, in the case of Loving v. Virginia, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that laws banning interracial marriages violated the Federal Constitution. In its opinion the Court confirmed that marriage was “one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’” and that denial of this right can “deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”
This recognition of marriage as a fundamental right means that neither the government nor the majority can take it away, unless there is a “compelling reason” for doing so.
In the Lawrence decision, Justice Kennedy writes, “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression and certain intimate conduct.” Denying “equality of treatment” in these areas is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and private sectors.”
Yet gays and lesbians in California, and numerous other states, only enjoy three of the four freedoms that “liberty presumes.” They are conspicuously denied equality of treatment in the area of expression—the right to express love and commitment through the institution of marriage.
In overturning the Bowers decision, Kennedy noted that the Court committed a fundamental error when it confined its analysis strictly to the “sexual conduct” involved: “When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.... To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.”
This right to an enduring personal bond, and this acknowledgment that the motivations of gays and lesbians seeking to marry are not significantly different from heterosexuals seeking to marry, establishes that there is no legal basis, compelling, rational or otherwise, for the government to ban same-sex marriages. In fact, as reported by USA TODAY, heterosexual couples are increasingly choosing to cohabit rather than marry; thus it should be refreshing to learn that same-sex couples still place a great deal of importance on the institution of marriage.
The courts, when dealing with cases involving religious discrimination, never question the sincerity of one’s faith, nor does society question whether a man and woman are marrying for the “right” reasons. Why then should such litmus tests be required for same-sex marriages? Why is it not presumed that two people in love sincerely wish to spend the rest of their lives together?
The tragedy of American society, and indeed of all societies, is it is so easy to blame scapegoats for all social ills. Throughout American history people of different races, religions and ethnic backgrounds were often looked upon by the majority with fear and loathing, and thus had to struggle to gain the rights that others took for granted. Sadly, when it comes to the rights of gays and lesbians, the descendants of many of these people are now chanting “majority rules.”
Perhaps a constitutional amendment should be passed decreeing that those who seek to deny fundamental rights to others must sacrifice those same rights themselves. After all, as Abraham Lincoln said, “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”
Monday, December 15, 2008
Bush comes under Iraqi "shoe attack"
An Iraqi reporter called U.S. President George W. Bush a 'dog' in Arabic and threw his shoes at him during a news conference in Baghdad.
In Baghdad, Bush told Iraqi President Jalal Talabani that the war, which began when U.S.-led troops invaded the country in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein, was not yet over.
"The work hasn't been easy but it's been necessary for American security, Iraqi hope and world peace," he said.
Talabani called Bush "a great friend for the Iraqi people, who helped us liberate our country".
Bush later signed a security pact with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki under which U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2011. They are to withdraw initially from Iraqi cities by June 2009.
However, Bush's brief visit to Iraq was not all smiles. During a press conference with Maliki, a correspondent for the Cairo-based al-Baghdadiya TV hurled his shoes at the U.S. president, shouting in Arabic, "this is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, dog" and "this is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq."
He was then overpowered by security personnel and taken away.
Bush, who dodged both shoes, said "I don't know what the guy's cause is." He later commented that, "If you want the facts, it's a size 10 shoe that he threw"
Showing the soles of shoes is considered an insult in Arabic culture. In 2004, Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi pointed the sole of his shoes towards then-British prime minster Tony Blair during talks in Libya. The gesture was interpreted in the Arab world as "the worst of all insults."
http://en.rian.ru/world/20081215/118853633.html
In Baghdad, Bush told Iraqi President Jalal Talabani that the war, which began when U.S.-led troops invaded the country in 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein, was not yet over.
"The work hasn't been easy but it's been necessary for American security, Iraqi hope and world peace," he said.
Talabani called Bush "a great friend for the Iraqi people, who helped us liberate our country".
Bush later signed a security pact with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki under which U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2011. They are to withdraw initially from Iraqi cities by June 2009.
However, Bush's brief visit to Iraq was not all smiles. During a press conference with Maliki, a correspondent for the Cairo-based al-Baghdadiya TV hurled his shoes at the U.S. president, shouting in Arabic, "this is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, dog" and "this is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq."
He was then overpowered by security personnel and taken away.
Bush, who dodged both shoes, said "I don't know what the guy's cause is." He later commented that, "If you want the facts, it's a size 10 shoe that he threw"
Showing the soles of shoes is considered an insult in Arabic culture. In 2004, Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi pointed the sole of his shoes towards then-British prime minster Tony Blair during talks in Libya. The gesture was interpreted in the Arab world as "the worst of all insults."
http://en.rian.ru/world/20081215/118853633.html
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Russian blonde named new Miss World
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa – Russian blonde Kseniya Sukhinova was crowned the 58th Miss World Saturday after a two-hour spectacle in South Africa that combined elements of travelogue and reality show, and the kind of flag-waving usually seen at sports events.Sukhinova beamed as she was crowned, and was composed and smiling moments afterward in a brief interview with The Associated Press. She said her immediate ambitions included meeting Russia's president, and that she planned to return soon to her studies at the Tyumen Oil and Gas University in her home region of northwestern Siberia.
"I am so happy to be here," she said of South Africa, which was hosting its sixth Miss World final. "I am so excited. It's amazing."
Sukhinova, who in a biography on the Miss World Web site listed becoming a super model as a goal, also had won the contest's top model award and was third in the swimsuit competition. She was a crowd favorite — though not as popular as hometown beauty Miss South Africa, Tansey Coetzee. Coetzee made the final five.
Second runner up was Miss Trinidad and Tobago, Gabrielle Walcott. First runner up was Miss India, Parvathy Omankuttan. Miss Angola, Brigite Santos, completed the top five.
In addition to the swim suit and modeling segments, the 109 contestants competed in a "pentathlon" that included building a small boat and taking soccer penalty kicks; a talent show; and an event showcasing their charity work in the monthlong lead-up to Saturday's live international broadcast.
The contest was to have taken place in Ukraine, but was moved to South Africa because of tensions between Russia and Georgia and fears conflict could spread to Ukraine. South Africa has hosted more Miss World finals than any other country.
South Africa, often in the news for its high violent crime rate and questions about whether it will pull off hosting the 2010 soccer World Cup, made the most of the attention. The broadcast included clips of the contestants visiting game parks, golf courses and pristine beaches in South Africa and dancing in the famed Johannesburg township of Soweto. South Africans designed evening and beach wear and jewelry for the 109 contestants.
"I've experienced South African culture and everyday traditions," Sukhinova told the AP.
http://en.rian.ru/photolents/20081218/118920875.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
