Archive for category church and state
Why You Wanna Break My Heart?
Posted by zoboxrox in church and state, human rights, justice, malfunction, politics, tragedy on June 16th, 2009
I realize I haven’t been completely objective (not that I ever claimed to be), and for a while there, I was a member of the Obama cheer-leading squad, but I’ve got to say, for me at least, the honeymoon is now officially over. Its not that I expected the new administration to do everything right, especially considering the seemingly insurmountable trouble they are faced with; its just, I never thought they would do something so clearly wrong.
To be fair, lets give a little context.
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA as it is known, was a bill signed into law by President Clinton – NOT President Bush — on September 21, 1996. It basically says that no state can be forced to recognize other state’s same-sex marriages and that the federal government is required not to. So yeah, its pretty bad.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ’spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife
Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, a gay couple who were married in California before Proposition 8 and had taken the two bans on marriage to Federal Court, were fought by the Obama Administration’s Justice Department. While it is rare for an administration not to defend the current laws (though not unheard of), whether or not they agree with them, it makes matters worse that Justice Department has written a brief which makes arguments comparing gay marriage to incestuous relationships.
The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.
This is not a direction I expected this president to go in. For someone who travels the globe, preaching tolerance and understanding, he should make more of an effort to practice it at home.
End the War on Love
Posted by zoboxrox in church and state, human rights, justice, malfunction, politics on May 28th, 2009
Prop(aganda H)8*
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Can you imagine anything less threatening than a gay wedding? Someone please explain to me what is so troubling to Americans about other people’s private lives. I will never get that. Are we in Saudi Arabia? I understand being threatened by violence, hatred, and fundamentalism, but certainly not by love — or sex for that matter. If you’re not the one having it, who cares?!
Anyway, that really doesn’t have very much to do with Tuesday’s ruling of the California Supreme Court, and while it is disappointing, it was actually a fair decision by the Justices. The fault lay with the argument brought forth on behalf of the plaintiffs, and the Court had no choice but to side with Prop(aganda H)8.
Every state has their own constitution, which, like the big one, can be amended as time passes, communities integrate, states modernize, etc. The Constitution of the State of California has been amended over 500 times and has a fairly clear set of instructions for the process:
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 8. (a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose
statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject
them…
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION
SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.
SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the
electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect
the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise…
It is under this pretense that opponents of Proposition 8 appealed to the State Supreme Court, arguing that the 52% vote for Proposition 8 was, in fact, not an amendment, but instead a revision to the Constitution, which cannot be written into law without further legislation (unlike an amendment). The ever trusty New York Times describes the lawsuit fairly clearly:
Supporters of same-sex marriage, who filed several suits challenging the proposition after its adoption, argued that the change to the state’s Constitution was so fundamental that the initiative was not an amendment at all but instead a “revision,” a term for measures that rework core constitutional principles.
Under California law, revisions cannot be decided through a simple signature drive and a majority vote, as with Proposition 8. Instead, they can be placed on the ballot only with a two-thirds vote by the Legislature.
But the justices said the proposition was an amendment, not a revision. It has been historically rare for the state’s courts to overturn initiatives on the ground that they are actually revisions, and many legal scholars had deemed the challenge to Proposition 8 a long shot.
Whether or not the justices felt Proposition 8 was constitutional, they have to rule in favor of the majority under this law suit. To ignore the majority vote would be to take the power out of the hands of the electors, and to do so would ultimately be considered tyranny. In this particular case, the California Supreme Court, which voted in favor of gay marriage just one year ago, was right in their decision.
Next time, why don’t you try Article 1, Section 1, which is pretty much a universal constitutional right, but in California is worded as such:
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.
Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty,
acquiring, possessing, and protecting property,
and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
I mean, there’s your argument right there. Pretty basic.
It should be noted that the vote was 6-1, with the sole dissenting voice coming from Justice Carlos R. Moreno (once considered a possible Supreme nominee), who determined that the amendment was an illegal revision based on its unconstitutionality. He wrote that Proposition 8 requires “discrimination” and “strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution and… places at risk the state constitutional right of all disfavored minorities.”
What’s the Harm in a Little Censorship?
Posted by zoboxrox in church and state, malfunction, politics, tragedy on May 23rd, 2009
Sorry I’ve been MIA this past week, my cat was in congenital heart failure and I’ve spent the past three days in Animal Hospitals, which are actually run much more efficiently than Human Hospitals (perhaps because they are not tied in to our current health care situation). So forgive me for my brevity, but I just had to share something I read on CNN Political Ticker:
Liberty University, the evangelical school in Virginia founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, is drawing heat Friday for its decision to revoke recognition of the College Democrats’ chapter on campus.
According to the Lynchburg News & Advance, the school decided a week ago the organization “stood against the moral principles” held by the school and therefore could no longer be sanctioned.
Maria Childress, the staff adviser to the club, told the paper the school — which opposes abortion rights and gay marriage — had issues with the Democratic Party platform.
Childress says she was told by Mark Hine, the vice president of student affairs, that “‘You can’t be a Democrat and be a Christian and be a university representative.’”
My boyfriend is from Lynchburg, VA and I’ve begged him to take me to Liberty University on more than one occasion. Now I’m not so sure. What was once a benign reminder of the strange direction the Conservative Right is going, has become a somewhat scary place to visit. It always starts with just a little censorship.
Bending Steele [Over]
Posted by zoboxrox in church and state, crime, malfunction, politics, religion on March 14th, 2009
RNC leader Michael Steele has been taking a lot of heat recently from his own party (what else is new) for some comments he made in an interview with GQ magazine, regarding women’s rights to choose and where he stood on the matter. [Interviewers questions in orange]
How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!
Upon hearing of Steele’s GQ disaster, a number of high ranking Pubes took it upon themselves to release statements. Here is Mike Huckabee’s attempt at leadership:
Comments attributed to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele are very troubling, and despite his clarification today the party stands to lose many of its members and a great deal of its support in the trenches of grass-roots politics [I dont know what most of this means, but it sounds serial!]. For Chairman Steele to even infer that taking a life is totally left up to the individual is not only a reversal of Republican policy and principle, but it’s a violation of the most basic of human rights — the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Actually Huck, you is wrong. While Michael Steele obviously loves to listen to himself talk, and is most likely at least borderline retarded, in this particular instance, he’s actually right. As it turns out, State over Federal Government is a very Republican stance. In fact, a nationwide ban on abortion would be in complete opposition to the idea of individual liberty and state’s rights, which, once again I will remind you, is the idea the GOP was more or less founded upon. If you look back in history many very traditional Republicans have been very pro-choice for this reason.
Lets take Senator Barry Goldwater, or “Mr Conservative”, as an example.
Goldwater was credited with championing a conservative-libertarian theme of freedom. He is said to have ushered in a new wave of thinking in the Republican Party - replacing the Rockefeller pro-business Republicans with advocates of smaller government like Ronald Reagan and the current Republican congressional leadership. Yet his advocacy of rights and liberties left out one important cause which so many Republicans today hold dear: the right to life…. Perhaps the most striking blow to the right to life came in 1992 when Goldwater took an active stand in opposition to the pro-life platform of the Republican Party. Goldwater opined that the GOP “will go down in a shambles” if the expected “anti-abortion” plank is adopted in the GOP platform.
LISTEN TO BARRY! Steele is doing the Right (pun intended, thrice!) thing by opening this topic up for discussion. Republican Conservatives are simply not the same thing as Religious Conservatives freaks, and the partnership of the two is tearing the GOP apart. And Goldwater is neither the first nor the last Republican to take this stance. In fact, I remember another prominent Repulican Arizona Senator who ran for President having more or less the same views as Steele when it came to abortion…
The most ironic part about the entire “gaffe”, is that this is by far the most intelligent part of Steele’s entire interview. Here are some snipits just for you:
Who do you listen to?
I actually listen to a cross section, because I like to hear what the medium is saying, what the voice isBut do you have a favorite?
P. Diddy I enjoy quite a bit. [I mean really?]****
Who else?
I like Sinatra. I like old-school. You know, Bing Crosby, Sinatra, Dean Martin. Love Dean Martin. He was one of these guys who just didn’t give an F. He just didn’t. Life was a party, and you either want to party or you don’t. But yeah, I like those. I’m a big Pack Rat. I love the Pack Rats from the 1950s—Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Frank Sinatra, those guys.You mean the Rat Pack.
The Rat Pack, yeah.****
How do you deal with the criticism?
I just pray on it.You do?
Oh yeah. And I ask God, “Hey, let me show just a little bit of love, so I absolutely don’t go out and kick this person’s ass.”Spoken like a true seminarian…
****
Was it emotional for you when Barack was sworn in?
No.Why not?
I don’t get caught up that way.****
Did you watch the Oscars?
I did! I love the Oscars. Despite what Mr. Shales said in his review in The Washington Post, I liked it. I thought it was: [claps]. And the host! Who knew?Did you watch the red-carpet stuff, too?
I did. I’m looking for who’s got what dress on, you know? I’m looking at the dresses. I’m lookin’ at what they’re doing with the hair. I’m lookin at the fellas. Now, you know, guys are wearing black and white, and I get that, but there’s some style points I could share with some of these brothers out there who just ain’t gettin’ it together.
What Happens When Democracy is Wrong?
Posted by zoboxrox in church and state, human rights, malfunction, politics, tragedy on December 21st, 2008
The funny thing about democracy is that it really does put the power in the hands of the people, and quite often, quite frankly, the people end up being wrong. Take, say, 2004, when they re-elected George Bush. Or 2000 for that matter. Or the people of Illinois and the fallen Governor Blagojevich. Or Richard Nixon. Joseph McCarthy. Newt Gingrich. Ted Stevens. Tom DeLay. Even Adolf Hitler was democratically elected into office.
Proposition 8 recently passed in California state-wide elections with a definitive majority, despite the fact that the Supreme Court of California has previously defended the rights of gay marriage. The Court is once again faced with a decision regarding marriage rights, but they must view the question now in a post-8 setting.
Sponsors of the California ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage are seeking to nullify thousands of marriages between gay and lesbian couples performed after the state Supreme Court ruled them constitutional.
The sponsors Friday filed responses to three anti-Proposition 8 lawsuits with the state Supreme Court. The briefs also defend Proposition 8 against opponents’ legal challenges, including an argument that the amendment needed a constitutional convention to be added to the state’s constitution.
“We are confident that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will ultimately be upheld,” said Andrew Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund.
So what can the California Court do now? In 2004 when faced with the same issue, they determined the following:
The court’s ruling said the right to marry is among a set of basic human rights “so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.“
It reminds me of a quote I learned in grammar school and never forgot, and I have a horrible memory but I’m pretty sure it goes like this: “There comes a point when a man must refuse to answer to his leader if he is also to answer to his own conscience.” 
So I wonder, are these comparable times? Is it up to the Justices of California, and perhaps ultimately the Supreme Court, to defy the majority in favor of what is right, both morally and under our Declaration of Independence, which ensures all inalienable human rights, including the pursuit of Happiness.
Are we creating a dangerous distinction between democracy and freedom? I say, as far as marriage equality is concerned, the answer is yes.
Why Warren Works
Posted by zoboxrox in church and state, human rights, malfunction, politics, religion on December 18th, 2008
So, apparently it suddenly matters who gives the Benediction at the Inauguration of the incoming President. Bush’s Benediction was delivered by Texas mega-church pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell, twice, and I never heard anything about him until he endorsed Barack Obama for President last year. Anyway, liberal and conservative groups alike are getting their panties all in a bunch over B-rock’s choice, Evangelical Prop-8 loving pastor Rick Warren. So I looked Rick Warren up and found out a whole bunch of stuff, but what I want to share with you are some pictures and the following question: Does this really look like a man who hates the gays?
His church is called “SADDLEBACK” for Christ’s sake.
Rehearsing for the musical
He’s ready for his close-up!
Talking about his new curtains, which, coincidentally, match his shirt!!
In all seriousness, the selection was disturbing but at the same time politically brilliant. By choosing a socially conservative but economically liberal figurehead for the religious center of his inauguration, he is inviting an entire group of formerly disenfranchised voters to join his new majority. The left may not like it, and it may not be right or fair, but this Warren guy represents the views of the majority of the country, and whether we like it or not, they are here to stay.
Small Step for Family, Giant Leap for Mankind
Posted by zoboxrox in church and state, crime, human rights, malfunction, politics on November 26th, 2008
Just yesterday, a Miami-Dade Judge ruled in favor of Martin Gill, backed by the ACLU, who was applying for legal and permanent adoption of his two sons, whom he has been raising for the past four years. Martin Gill is gay and Florida has, since 1977, had a ban on adoption by gay parents, similar to the one recently passed in Arkansas. Judge Cindy Lederman, however, “ruled Tuesday that there is no rational, scientific or moral reason that sexual orientation should be a barrier to adopting children.“ AMEN sister!
For the Gill family, which is already cohesive and established, little will change aside from the children’s last names and Martin’s legal rights as father. For the state of Florida and the rest of the United States, on the other hand, the battle has only just begun.
Welcome to 1973, South Dakota
Posted by zoboxrox in church and state, health, human rights, malfunction, politics, tragedy on October 30th, 2008
You cannot outlaw abortion, you can only outlaw illegal abortion
Before I really get into the post, I would like to preface it with a little disclaimer: despite my strong pro-choice stance and the fact that I have never personally been faced with this situation, I find the issue very complicated, and am in no way intolerant of someone else’s opinion… when it comes to their own personal bodily choice.
Ok.
In 1973 the landmark abortion case Roe v Wade was decided by the Supreme Court and abortion became legal in all fifty of the United States (”up until the point at which the fetus becomes viable”… thanks for being so clear guys).
Below is a list of abortion legislation that occurred in South Dakota following Roe v Wade
1977 - the South Dakota legislation amended the abortion statute, requiring medical attention for infants born alive during abortions
1980 - passed a law requiring 24-hour waiting period before an abortion
1981 - adopted law protecting medical personnel and institutions for refusal to participate in abortions
1982 - changed the law to allow county and municipal hospitals to adopt no-abortion policies
1993 - passed a law requiring parental notification for minors, informed consent, + the 24hr wait period
1997 - passed first partial-birth abortion ban
1998 - passed a law protecting pharmacists who refused to dispense abortion medications, etc.
2000 - passed a law prohibiting anyone other than physicians from performing or inducing abortions
2004 - passed a bill that tried to ban abortions in South Dakota and allow them only if a woman’s life was in danger or if she faced grave health risks. Bill was vetoed by Gov. Mike Rounds.
That same year another bill was rejected, which would have required hospitals to offer information about emergency contraception to rape victims.
I remember this well. My roommate at the time was the uber-driven and successful grand-daughter of a South Dakota state legislator who, though he is a self-confirmed “life long republican,” has always been on the side of choice when it comes to abortions, (perhaps because he is Jewish and doesn’t share the same religious philosophies of much of the Right that ultimately lead to their opinion over the topic). Anyway, he was so involved in the dispute, he flew my then-roommate from New York City out to South Dakota, which I never actually realized had existed before that very moment, to testify on behalf of young women everywhere. She came back a couple days later, showing of her front-page cover in the local - or possibly state - press. I was in awe.
Then came the first statewide vote to completely ban abortion in 2006, which lost 55% to 44%. One major reason that was cited was the bills lack of a threat to life clause, which provides exceptions to the ban when the life of the mother is at risk if the pregnancy continues. So they tweaked it a little and it only took two years to get the bill back on the statewide ballot. When people in South Dakota go to the polls this coming Tuesday, they will once again be voting on whether or not to issue a statewide ban.
This is more-or-less in line with the McCain/Palin stance. While Palin abhors all abortion, McCain believes Roe v Wade was a fundamentally flawed decision and should be overturned and replaced by statewide laws. Here is the problem with that:
Regional restriction denies choice, more or less completely, for people living within the light blue areas on the map above. If a girl in Mississippi has an unwanted pregnancy, she is not left with very many options, especially if she is without funds or access to help, and thus, illegal abortions will begin to exist again, even in a country that has access.
Abortion was criminalized throughout the U.S. between the late 1800s and 1973. But during that time, millions of women sought and obtained abortions anyway. Of these, tens upon tens of thousands died from illegal abortions or complications arising from them. One 1932 study estimated that illegal abortions or complications from them were the cause of death for 15,000 women each year. Current, more conservative, estimates of the death toll still stand at between 5,000 and 10,000 deaths per year.
Not to hit the point home too hard but… VOTE! Especially if you live in South Dakota!!!!!!
Recent Comments