Liberty and Justice for All!

I have been trying to figure out the exact problem the Democrats are having this election. It shouldn’t be that hard. You have a Republican presidential candidate who is going to follow in the footsteps of President Bush if elected. Well, I figured it out.

This election should have been a referendum on the Bush Administration and those Republicans who continue to blindly follow Bush’s failed policies. However, it has become a referendum on “making history” and how we should do it (by either electing a black man or a woman to be our president).

This is not just a recipe for failure in the 2008 general election. This also loses sight of the main point of fighting for civil rights. We are not supposed to be supporting people because they are a woman or belonging to a minority group. We are supposed to try and treat all people equally regardless of their gender or ethnicity. As Dr. King said, judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

And yes, I completely  understand and accept the argument that a black person is likely to think that a black president would understand the needs of the black community (just as a woman might think that a woman president would understand the needs of women). That is all well and good for the individual. However, for the party as a whole, we need to get off of the idea that electing our candidate will make history. We need to get back to the idea that if John “Bush Wannabe” McCain gets elected, that our rights and civil liberties will BE history.

Even though they claim to that they didn even reach first base, a fan cried foul when two lesbians kissed in public (cue dramatic music) and the couple was ejected from the stadium. The stadium has a “kiss cam” where couples are encouraged to kiss, but I guess this fan (who didn’t want her son exposed to homosexuality) couldn’t just treat this woman like anyone else. Instead of teaching her son the lesson that we need to treat people equally, this fan decided to teach her child to hate. That is sad. And it is sad that we live in a society that treats gay people so poorly.

I plan on going to a Baltimore Orioles game soon with my wife. I will let you know if our kissing causes us to get the boot as well. I bet that we will be fine.

Since we passed a gay marriage ban that does not recognize the legal relationship created by legal gay marriages in other states, the American Political Science Association is considering a ban on holding events in New Orleans and cancelling an already scheduled event here planned for 2012.  

One of the arguments made is that if one of the associations gay members fell ill, his/her partner would be unable to make medical decisions for him/her because the law would not recognize the legal authority for him/her to do so. Others in the article disagree and believe they are taking the argument too far. However, if I was in a situation where I had doubts as to whether the law would allow my spouse to make medical decisions for me, would I really want to risk travelling to that state?

Mark Vail, an assistant professor at Tulane, called Pinello’s argument about health care “at best, overblown.” Vail said there is little risk of a circumstance arising that would jeopardize the members’ civil rights. He added that the law leading to the amendment did not originate in New Orleans and passed here by a small margin.

Notice the “little risk” and not “no risk”. And why does the fact that this bill only passed by a small margin make any difference? So what, we are supposed to be happy that just over half of the people who voted here support the law? People should be happy that New Orleans, while less intolerant than the rest of Louisiana, is still intolerant when it comes to civil rights for gay people? Mr. Vail’s argument is flawed and I am shocked that Tulane would have someone teaching political science who would make such a flawed political argument. That doesn’t say much for the department.

“We feel that the fears expressed by Mr. Pinello really, fundamentally misunderstand what New Orleans is about,” Vail said. “We think that its incredibly unfair to punish New Orleans.”

Mr. Pinello is not making a statement about what New Orleans is about. He is making a statement about the legal climate in Louisiana for homosexuals. Perhaps Mr. Vail should work on changing the law that is unfair to people who are GLBT instead of complaining that one convention is refusing to come here because a super-majority of the people who voted feel that gay people are second class citizens.

Mary Beth Romig, a spokeswoman for the New Orleans Metropolitan Convention and Visitors Bureau, said her organization has been in touch with the political science association to assure its members that New Orleans would be welcoming to gay members of the group.

I’m sure that New Orleans would welcome in any group that brings money in. This is not the concern here. Perhaps Mary Beth could get on the phone to the A.G. and determine whether the concerns raised are valid and if a partner in a homosexual relationship would be unable to give consent to a medical procedure for his/her partner based on current Louisiana law.

“I hear time and again that New Orleans is gay-friendly,” Pinello said. “I simply don’t understand what the basis of that is. To say that a street fair makes the city gay friendly is turning to the worst stereotypes of gays and lesbians. I think that’s offensive.”

I couldn’t agree more. If half the city voted against gay marriages, that doesn’t speak to highly of the city and its willingness to accept gay people as equal.

The California Supreme Court just struck down the gay marriage ban! Now there are two states where gay people are not treated as second class citizens.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.

Absolutely right. Of course, the California GHEL plan on striking back.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

I hope they fail. The tyranny of the majority should not get to treat people like second class citizens. PERIOD. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one. It is really just that simple.

California Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger wrote in a court brief:

A day may come when the people decide to legalize same-sex marriage. But such a social change should appropriately come from the people rather than the judiciary so long as constitutional rights are protected

Hmmm, if we waited on important social change to come from the people instead of the judiciary, I wonder if we would still have separate schools. I guess this legal scholar forgets the necessity of that little ruling called “Brown v. Board of Education“. Does he feel that the Brown ruling was inappropriate? I wonder how long interracial marriages would have been outlawed had it been left to the people instead of being decided by “Loving v. Virginia“? I feel sorry for the people of California if this is the kind of legal representation they have in their DA office.

Anti-gay marriage activists also feel that:

 limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex is reasonable — not only to uphold tradition but because California voters approved a ballot initiative eight years ago bolstering the gay-marriage ban that was in place at the time. To overturn that law, they say, would abrogate the rights of all Californians.

So let me get this straight, allowing gay people to marry abrogates the rights of all Californians? That is absurd! If they don’t feel that gay people have the Constitutionally protected right to get marriage, how on Earth do they figure that Californians have a Constitutionally protected right to live in a state where gay people are discriminated against?

How about this. Maybe, just maybe, if people spent more time worrying about their own marriages instead of worrying about other people getting married, we wouldn’t have such an abysmal divorce rate! Just my humble opinion.

So called “pro-majority” protestors marched on Jena today to proudly show how Louisiana still has a long way to go when it comes to race relations. Not only did they re-open the old sore that was created with the Jena Six controversy, they showed that Louisiana still has people that embrace the days of old. I am sure that these people would want slavery reinstated in the name of so called “white civil rights”.

To make these racists look even more ignorant, they brought their own firearms with them (even though a Louisiana law prevents marching when armed).

To complete the show of ignorance, one of the marchers actually stated:

“It’s time for us white folks to start getting some of our rights back.”

News flash, white folks have not lost any rights (unless he feels that owning slaves is a right that a white person should have). I guess the good thing about this march was that they could only find 50 pathetic losers to march. At least that shows that they are unorganized.

Tony Perkins and the FRC have a problem with Homosexuals. Apparently, Tony Perkins cannot live a moral life if homosexuals are treated as people, just like everybody else. There is no other reason I can think of that he is so opposed to two amendments to HR 3685. In his recent press release he states:

House Amendment #1 to H.R. 3685 by Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-Calif.) will grant special rights to transgendered people. House Amendment #7 to H.R. 3685, offered by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), is a very limited amendment that purports to protect religious institutions but, in fact, denies protection to most Christian schools and other private groups and businesses.

Tammy Baldwin is not from California (she is from Wisconsin), so someone needs to do some fact checking for Mr. Perkins. Congresswoman Baldwin’s amendment (pdf) does not give “special rights” to anybody. It understands the fact that people who are born with one gender but identify with another gender should be protected when they seek to live their lives as a member of the gender they identify with. Even conservative Louisiana, the state that has banned marriage and civil unions for homosexual couples, allows people to be issued a new birth certificate if they have gender reassignment. I wonder if Mr. Perkins feels that this hurts his family as well.

George Miller’s statement on the bill seems to contradict Tony Perkins as well. According to the statement, the bill exempts religious organizations. So any religious organization that Tony Perkins belongs to will be free to discriminate against all the gay people they want. He need not worry that gay people will infiltrate his little cabal and destroy the hatred that he holds dear.

What ever happned to “hate the sin, love the sinner”?

Let’s see where else Tony Perkins is absolutely wrong.

If this legislation passes, it will mainstream homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism

It will do no such thing. No more people will be gay, bisexual, or transgendered if the law gets passed. The majority of people will be heterosexual and no law can change that.

and provide activists a legal tool for punishing employers who do not approve of these lifestyles

No it doesn’t. An employer need not approve of “these lifestyles” to follow the law. Period.

They will either accommodate these sexual behaviors or face the full weight of federal civil rights enforcement.

Wrong. If they would be required to accommodate those sexual behaviors, they would be required to allow them to commit sexual acts in the workplace. They are clearly not required to do so.

This legislation essentially seeks to silence those with religious beliefs, either through legislation or the lawsuits this bill will create and encourage.

Again, Tony Perkins is incorrect. People with religious beliefs are still free to follow them, whatever they are. And if Mr. Perkin’s religious beliefs tells him to hate gay people he is more than welcome to do so. Preventing businesses from discriminating against gay people would not prevent people from speaking out against homosexuals if they so desired. If it did, the law would be unconstitutional.

Perkins completes his release with: “Thank you and God bless you.”. I guess he should add “unless you are gay”. 
 
As a side note, this post has prompted me to start a new category: “What is wrong with America” to point out the things that are, well, wrong with America. I may go back and update other posts with this tag, but I will hope to make frequent updates to this category. But first and foremost, Tony Perkins absolutely represents what is wrong with America.

Update #1: The bill passed the house. Here is the bill text. The bill does not require quotas and the bill protects religious institutions (even schools that are Christian but non-affiliated). So in those areas, Tony Perkins was dead wrong. Unfortunately, the bill did not include Tammy Baldwin’s amendment. She withdrew it because she felt it would cause the bill to not pass. I don’t quite understand that logic, but it is rather unfortunate if true. I guess Republicans could have voted to pass the amendment to get enough Democrats to vote against the bill as a whole. However, I just don’t think that Republicans would risk having a yes vote on this issue listed on their record.

Jim Brown was discussing this law on his radio show this morning. He was stating that it treat’s Louisiana like 2nd class citizens and that the law is no longer needed. He complained about some of the requirements it places on our states and he believes that because there have been no issues of minorities being unable to vote that the law is antiquated and should be repealed.  I couldn’t disagree more.

While the act may have achieved its goal to ensure that minority voters get registered, there are other issues where intervention is needed. I don’t believe that the overt racism, like people physically being restrained from voting, would occur. However, other forms of institutionalized racism might otherwise take place if it wasn’t for the act. Currently, any change in election laws require approval from the justice department. The state would have a check and balance on any changes it would make in redistricting. And with the possibility that Louisiana will be losing a Congressional seat, redistricting will become a very important issue and I, for one, want to make sure that no attempts are made to redistrict in such a way that would prevent minorities from having adequate representation. 

States with histories of institutionalized racism should have to prove that it is ready to be trusted to treat each citizen equally, regardless of race or any other physical quality. And with the recent events in Jena Louisiana, and the institutionalized racism that was exposed, Louisiana still has a long way to go that it is ready to be removed from the restrictions placed on it by the act. The fact that the Klan is also alive and well on the Northshore doesn’t help matters either.

Republican Hypocrite, State Rep. Richard Curtis, is alleged to have worn womens clothing while seeking sexual favors in an adult bookstore before going to a hotel for another romp with another man. And even though the police report claims otherwise, Curtis claims that he did not have homosexual sex and that he is not gay. Curtis had previously voted against gay rights.

I’d add my two cents but Oyster, over at Your Right Hand Thief, pretty much sums it up as well as anyone could ask for.

Of course, you can help expose Republican hypocricy by buying David Vitter “WWVD” merchandise.

So far today, there have been three rulings that protect the right winged idealism that speech should be stifled when it comes to drugs (but not when it comes to pro-life advocacy groups) and that people can’t sue when the government wants to give your tax dollars to “faith based” groups.