Liberty and Justice for All!

While each and every person who voted against gay marriage on election day should be ashamed of themselves, the 70% of Black Voters in California who voted against gay marriage should be doubly ashamed.

Many pundits have said that the reason the black voters voted the way they did is because those who supported the “vote No on Prop 8″ position did not take the time to do some outreach in the black community. I disagree with that idea wholeheartedly. If there is any group that should not need to be told that voting to discriminate a group because they are different is wrong, it is the black community. No black person should ever have to be told “discriminating against someone who is in the minority is a bad thing”.

They voted for Proposition 2, a bill that gives chickens and pigs better living conditions.

However, the also voted for Proposition 8, a bill banning gay marriage in California.

So let me get this straight. It was the position of the California voters this year that chickens and pigs deserve more rights, but gay people deserve less rights? Am I getting that right? Isn’t there something completely wrong with this picture?

Anyone who voted for Prop 8 in California should be ashamed of themselves.

In showing how the Republican party does not quite understand the real world, not only did the Republicans affirm their quest to obtain a constitutional ban on abortion, they also removed the reductions of abortions from their party platform.

So let me get this straight. The party who claims to be pro-life and wants to protect embryos is only caring about criminalizing abortion and not worrying about reducing their numbers? How is that for not being genuine?

Republicans also affirmed their hatred of homosexuals by continuing their support to ban gay marriages. I am sure that marriage defenders David “who would Vitter do” Vitter and Larry “toe tapping” Craig will be leading the battle charge on this one. I’m shocked they are not calling for both a return to Jim Crow laws and a constitutional amendment to keep women in the kitchen and out of the voting booth. Could the Republican Party be any more archaic?

Cross posted at Barack Obama for President.

Bobby Jindal refused to continue the executive order signed by Blanco that would prevent workplace discrimination against homosexuals.  

This is really nothing new, Jindal whined about this very thing when Blanco signed it at the beginning of her term. At the time (in a post I unfortunately cannot find) I criticized Jindal for two reasons. First, he had promised to work together with the Governor and the first thing he does (before even being sworn in to his only full term as Congressman)  is criticize Blanco instead of talking to her first about his misguided fears about what this would do.

Bottcher said Jindal’s letter violates the “spirit of cooperation” expressed at a meeting last week between the governor and members of Louisiana’s congressional delegation. Jindal should have called Blanco if he wanted clarification about the executive order, Bottcher said.

“Certainly the governor believes that public officials ought to talk to each other directly and not write a letter, send it to the media and have the media call the office,” Bottcher said. “Her door has certainly always been and always will be open to any Louisiana congressman.”

Second, Jindal showed he had zero understanding of federal law on this issue. He should have educated himself before making this public criticism. Instead, he shot first and never bothered to ask questions later.  

But Blanco spokeswoman Denise Bottcher said the directive will not restrict the ability of religious groups to pursue government contracts, noting that federal law already protects their right to use hiring practices that conform with their particular beliefs.

“The governor’s executive order does not have the power to change federal or state law or any court decision, and Gov. Blanco has said the order does not impact the hiring practices of faith-based organizations,” Bottcher said.

I am assuming that nothing changed in federal law that would make this claim invalid. So I guess in Jindal’s 3 years as a Congressman, he didn’t learn anything about federal law on this issue and still remains ignorant of the facts. The fact is that Blanco’s order would not have effected the hiring practices of religious organizations and Jindal’s “excuse” for not continuing the executive order does not hold water.

According to the Advocate:

Louisiana Family Forum is a group that seeks to “persuasively present biblical principles” in political and other issues. During the campaigns last year, the group’s leaders told Jindal and some legislators running for office, how disappointed they were in Blanco for signing the executive order, said Gene Mills of Baton Rouge, the group’s executive director.

“Gov. Jindal comes from a different mindset, understanding the damage that this potentially poses to children and to the economy. He decided not to re-up that executive order but to simply let it sunset,” Mills said.Jindal is refusing to continue the executive order that Governor Blanco issued that included sexual orientation as part of the protected class of groupings (like race and gender).

Gene Mills is an idiot if he thinks that government protecting people from discrimination is harmful to children and to the economy. Of course, being the head of the “Louisiana Family Forum” tends to not require a lot of logical reasoning skills. Just hate gay people and you are good to go.

And Bobby Jindal? Well, Jindal has proved that even when he was shown that the order would not effect religious groups, he closed his ears and like a child went “LALALALA, IM NOT LISTENING”. He instead listened to fear mongering gay hating groups and made it the official policy of the office of the Governor to not care about gay people and any struggles.

I am really not shocked that Jindal would promote a policy that allows for discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, for him to fall back on the same excuse that was proven wrong 4 years ago may serve to show that Jindal really is not as smart as his backers wants us to believe. Either that, or perhaps he is just choosing to remain willfully ignorant about the issue. Either way, it does not bode well for the people of Louisiana.

But don’t blame me, I never voted for Jindal.

Update:Someone suggested to me that perhaps he is neither dumb or ignorant. Perhaps he just believes that the voters are dumb and/or ignorant. It is possible that Jindal may be playing up to the masses because he feels that they are dumb. I mean, the majority of the voters bought his B.S. during the election. I guess he figures he has carte blanche to continue to spread his B.S.

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.