Various Direct Links

25 January 2012

FollowUp 1: NJ Democrats Call for Marriage Equality

The fight is on.  New Jersey Governor responded to the state Democrats placing marriage equality as their first order of business by insulating himself against attacks of bigotry.  He did so by appointing the first Black, Gay justice to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Gov. Chris Christie nominated Bruce Harris to the state Supreme Court as an associate judge just weeks after he was sworn in as the Mayor of Chatham Borough on Jan. 3.
Along with Harris, an African-American Republican, Christie nominated Phil Kwon, a Korean-American assistant attorney general. Should these nominations pass the confirmation hearing process, Harris would be the first openly gay and Kwon the first Asian-American to serve on the highest court of the state.
Having effectively limited the types of attacks from the left, Mr. Christie renewed his statement that he would veto any marriage equality bill.



As Senator Loretta Weinberg says in the below video, we do not put civil rights questions on the ballot.
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community....
To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.
 James Madison, Federalist No. 10 (1787-11-22)
And now the Democrats of the New Jersey Senate respond.



Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

9 January 2012, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

26 January 2012, FollowUp 2.

28 January 2012, FollowUp 3.

30 January 2012, FollowUp 4.

31 January 2012, FollowUp 5.

3 February 2012, FollowUp 6.

10 February 2012, FollowUp 7.

13 February 2012, FollowUp 8.

18 February 2012, FollowUp 9.

21 February 2012, FollowUp 10.

23 January 2012

Praise: Mary Margaret Haugen

Senator Haugen
Washington State Senator Mary Margaret Haugen announced today that she will be the tipping point vote for marriage equality in the State of Washington.  Her words are thoughtful and insightful.  Please take the time to read carefully.  Thank you!

# # #

“For several weeks now, I have heard from the people of my district. They’ve shared what’s in their hearts and minds.

“I have received many letters, emails, phone calls, very heartfelt, from both sides of the issue. I’ve also received a number of very negative comments from both sides.

“For some people, this is a simple issue. I envy them. It has not been simple or easy for me.

“To some degree, this is generational. Years ago I took exception to my parents’ beliefs on certain social issues, and today my children take exception to some of mine. Times change, even if it makes us uncomfortable. I think we should all be uncomfortable sometime. None of us knows everything, and it’s important to have our beliefs questioned. Only one being in this world is omniscient, and it’s not me.

“I have very strong Christian beliefs, and personally I have always said when I accepted the Lord, I became more tolerant of others. I stopped judging people and try to live by the Golden Rule. This is part of my decision. I do not believe it is my role to judge others, regardless of my personal beliefs. It’s not always easy to do that. For me personally, I have always believed in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. That is what I believe, to this day.

“But this issue isn’t about just what I believe. It’s about respecting others, including people who may believe differently than I. It’s about whether everyone has the same opportunities for love and companionship and family and security that I have enjoyed.

“For as long as I have been alive, living in my country has been about having the freedom to live according to our own personal and religious beliefs, and having people respect that freedom.

“Not everyone will agree with my position. I understand and respect that. I also trust that people will remember that we need to respect each other’s beliefs. All of us enjoy the benefits of being Americans, but none of us holds a monopoly on what it means to be an American. Ours is truly a big tent, and while the tent may grow and shrink according to the political winds of the day, it should never shrink when it comes to our rights as individuals.

“Do I respect people who feel differently? Do I not feel they should have the right to do as they want? My beliefs dictate who I am and how I live, but I don’t see where my believing marriage is between a man and a woman gives me the right to decide that for everyone else.

“I’ve weighed many factors in arriving at this decision, and one of them was erased when the legislation heard today included an amendment to clearly provide for the rights of a church to choose not to marry a couple if that marriage contradicts the church’s view of its teachings. That’s important, and it helped shape my decision.

“My preference would be to put this issue on the ballot and give all Washingtonians the opportunity to wrestle with this issue, to search their hearts as I have, and to make the choice for themselves. But I do not know that there are the votes to put it to a ballot measure. So, forced to make a choice, my choice is to allow all men and women in our state to enjoy the same privileges that are so important in my life. I will vote in favor of marriage equality.

“I know this announcement makes me the so-called 25th vote, the vote that ensures passage. That’s neither here nor there. If I were the first or the seventh or the 28th vote, my position would not be any different. I happen to be the 25th because I insisted on taking this much time to hear from my constituents and to sort it out for myself, to reconcile my religious beliefs with my beliefs as an American, as a legislator, and as a wife and mother who cannot deny to others the joys and benefits I enjoy.

“This is the right vote and it is the vote I will cast when this measure comes to the floor.”

Praise: WE DO Campaign

The push for equality across the United States includes a very active effort in the South.  The Campaign for Southern Equality released a video at the end of last week that is an interesting twist, bringing in a positive religious component.  This in South Carolina, with Equality license plates available starting at the end of January.



Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

23 January 2012: Marriage News Watch



Links:  American Foundation for Equal Rights, Marriage News Watch.

30 January 2012: Marriage News Watch.
6 February 2012: Marriage News Watch.
13 February 2012: Marriage News Watch.
20 February 2012: Marriage News Watch.
21 February 2012: Marriage News Watch Special Episode.
27 February 2012: Marriage News Watch.
12 March 2012:  Marriage News Watch.
19 March 2012: Marriage News Watch.
26 March 2012:  Marriage News Watch.
2 April 2012: Marriage News Watch.
5 April 2012: Marriage News Watch, Surprise Advance.
16 April 2012: Marriage News Watch.
23 April 2012: Marriage News Watch.
30 April 2012: Marriage News Watch.
7 May 2012: Marriage News Watch.
10 May 2012: Marriage News Watch, 2012's Biggest Marriage Milestones So Far.
14 May 2012: Marriage News Watch.
21 May 2012: Marriage News Watch.
28 May 2012: Marriage News Watch.
4 June 2012: Marriage News Watch.
5 June 2012: Marriage News Watch, Prop 8 Rehearing Denied.
11 June 2012: Marriage News Watch.
18 June 2012: Marriage News Watch.
25 June 2012: Marriage News Watch.
2 July 2012: Marriage News Watch.
10 July 2012: Marriage News Watch.
16 July 2012: Marriage News Watch.

22 January 2012

Repudiation: ProLifeCon

A short history of legal action around the medical condition of Terri Schiavo

In 2005, following an extended legal battle in the state of Florida, then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, himself a surgeon specializing in heart transplants, and his fellow Republicans endeavored to extend the life of Terri Schiavo.   The problem was that Ms. Schiavo was in a persistant vegetative state (PVS).  Three years after that diagnosis, after repeated efforts with various treatments, Michael Schiavo asked the hospital to stop resuscitating his wife.  Ms. Schiavo's parents objected and sued.

For details of Ms. Schiavo's medical condition, see the New England Journal of Medicine.  The bottom line is that she was PVS.  Her brain, following too long without oxygen, had atrophied.  Her body functioned in that her heart was still beating and her lungs worked, but she could neither drink nor eat.  In other words, the body was alive but the brain was dead.  If you believe in a soul that is separate from corporal existence, that soul had already rejoined God.

But that did not stop Senator Frist from pushing for legislation, signed later by President Bush, that would move the Schiavo case from Florida state courts to federal courts.  This despite having run the gamut of the Florida appellate system, Mr. Schiavo never losing the right to make end of life decisions for his PVS wife.  Based on a memo from Florida Senator Mel Martinez, many speculated that this was not about real morality but about positioning the Republican Party for the 2008 election cycle.

Dr. Frist gave a speech against terminating the life of Ms. Schiavo on the floor of the Senate.  He was accused of having done a long-distance diagnosis of her condition.  USA Today discussed this along with other points.
Frist, R-Tenn., said in the full Senate that he supported what he called "an opportunity to save Mrs. Schiavo's life." A heart surgeon, Frist had viewed video ordered by a court and taken by a board-certified neurologist who had concluded she was not in a persistent vegetative state.
So, while Dr. Frist did not conduct the diagnosis himself, he was supporting a long-distance diagnosis that reached the opposite conclusion of the the team of doctors caring for Ms. Schiavo.  Still dubious, but not quite as horrible as the allegation that he was diagnosing long distance in a field in which he did not specialize.

Later, Sen. Frist opined on the case (still from the USA Today article).
Asked on NBC's Meet the Press if he had any regrets regarding the Schiavo case, Frist said: "Well, I'll tell you what I learned from it, which is obvious. The American people don't want you involved in these decisions."
So, the government should not be second guessing doctors and state courts.

ProLifeCon

On Monday 23 January 2012, as part of the protest events around the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Family Research Council (FRC), mostly known for the anti-equality stand on homosexuals, is hosting ProLifeCon, a rally of pro-life activists.  FRC boasts that one of those featured will be Collin Raye, a singer and the spokesman for the Terri Schaivo Life & Hope Network.

It is bizarre that the Terri Schaivo Life & Hope Network exists in complete denial of Ms. Schiavo's PVS condition.  Now the FRC, who regularly lie about homosexuality in pursuit of continuing the denial of equality to the LGBTQ Community, welcome those who lie about a past medical condition to protest a Supreme Court decision that helps keep abortion rates low.

Protesting Roe v Wade is counterproductive to those who want fewer abortions, but it does raise a lot of money for the organizations coordinating the protests.  The Washington Post ran an opinion piece on 17 January.
The annual carnival in Washington around the Jan. 22 anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision (Happy 39th, Roe!) has become more farcical with each repetition. As technology and state-policy changes make the landmark case less important, anniversary observances have devolved into fact-free spectacles that have less to do with abortion than with raising money for advocacy groups on both sides.
I don't mind if religions choose to preach almost anything in their sanctuaries.  They are welcome to call me a terrible person and damn me to hell if they so choose.  I do object to their endeavor to inflict their belief system on the rest of us.

Let's face it, a zygote and an early embryo are each alive in the same sense that Ms. Schiavo was in her PVS.  The flesh is alive, but no one is home.  In the first two, the spirit has not yet been breathed into the body.
Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.  Genesis 2 : 7.
In the latter case, the spirit had departed years before the body was allowed to stop.  If someone objects to an abortion, they should not have an abortion.  If someone does not want their spouses body to stop breathing despite being in a PVS, they should be allowed to pay for continued care.  But the laws should not be suited to just that particular religious view of life.

21 January 2012

FollowUp 3: SOPA Overreach

Following the various website blackouts earlier this week, both SOPA and PIPA are on hold.  Good news, but we need to be prepared for the next round whenever that might be.  Information is the most powerful weapon that we have in a free society.  Understanding how information may be legally shared is at the heart of protecting that legal sharing.  This means understanding Copyright Law and the Fair Use Doctrine.

Among the best tools for understanding these concepts that I have found and shown to many classes of students is the following video from the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society.
Professor Eric Faden of Bucknell University created this humorous, yet informative, review of copyright principles delivered through the words of the very folks we can thank for nearly endless copyright terms.


22 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

18 December 2011, FollowUp 1.

20 January 2012, FollowUp 2.

Praise: Mayors for Marriage Equality

Freedom to Marry is one of the national organization calling for equality.  The United States Conference of Mayors has joined with Freedom to Marry to produce the following.



With one hundred mayors currently signed on, the statement reads.
As mayors of great American cities, we proudly stand together in support of the freedom of same-sex couples to marry. We personally know many gay and lesbian people living in our cities who are in committed, loving relationships, who are active participants in the civic life of our communities, and who deserve to be able to marry the person with whom they share their life.    
We are proud that at its 2009 annual meeting, the U.S. Conference of Mayors unanimously approved a resolution stating that: “The U.S. Conference of Mayors supports marriage equality for same-sex couples, and the recognition and extension of full equal rights to such unions, including family and medical leave, tax equity, and insurance and retirement benefits, and opposes the enshrinement of discrimination in the federal or state constitutions.”    
Our cities derive great strength from their diversity, and gay and lesbian families are a crucial part. Studies have shown what we know through our hands-on experience—that cities that celebrate and cultivate diversity are the places where creativity and ideas thrive. They are the places where today’s entrepreneurs are most likely to choose to build the businesses of tomorrow. Allowing same-sex couples the right to marry enhances our ability to build this kind of environment, which is good for all of us.       
We stand for the freedom to marry because it enhances the economic competitiveness of our communities, improves the lives of families that call our cities home, and is simply the right thing to do.  We look forward to working to build an America where all people can share in the love and commitment of marriage with the person with whom they share their life.
Thank you! The movement for equality is in all states, in all communities, and is right for all of our cities and towns.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

29 February 2012:  FollowUp 1.

Repudiation: Flying a Confederate Flag

From 1861 - 1865 the United States went through what we now call The Civil War.  It was sedition, beginning with the assault on Fort Sumter in April 1861.  The flag of the rebellion we now call The Confederate Flag.
graphic from Wikipedia
This flag is seen by some as a symbol of ancestral pride, but others see it as a symbol of racism, slavery and oppression.  In either case, it is an historic symbol of sedition.  The four years of the Civil War, sometimes called the War of the Northern Aggression in parts of the Deep South, ended slavery in the United States but did not end racism with a tiered class system.  The Civil Rights Movement of the twentieth century was very much an extension of the Civil War.

Lexington, Virginia is in the western part of the state and only about sixty miles from the Courthouse at Appomattox where General Lee surrendered to General Grant.  In September 2011, Lexington created an ordinance that restricts flags on city poles to the national, state, and city flags.  The Sons of Confederate Veterans object.
The Stonewall Brigade argues in a lawsuit filed in Roanoke federal court on Thursday that their constitutional free expression rights have been violated.
"When someone says 'we're not going to allow you to express yourself because we don't like what you have to say,' that's a subjective determination, and that's not allowable under the First Amendment," Brigade Commander Brandon Dorsey said.
The city stands by its decision.
Lexington City Manager Jon Ellestad, said the flag ban intended to stop the light poles from being used as a public forum and reserve them for city use only.
"Much of the complaint we received from the community was the perception by a number of people that the Confederate flag is associated with slavery, and they did not want to have the community portrayed that way," Ellestad said.
The Rutherford Institute, supporters of religious bigotry in the guise of liberty, is taking the case.
“The First Amendment was penned by the Framers of the Constitution to protect our ideas and speech, both the popular and the unpopular,” stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “The issue here is not whether the Confederate flag should be displayed but whether we, as Americans, remain committed to the idea of free speech. If we allow the censoring of something simply because it may be controversial, we open the door for the government to discard anything deemed disturbing or offensive.”
Freedom of speech has limits, so crying fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech.  One cannot take advantage of the First Amendment to avoid prosecution for fomenting a riot.  Flying the Confederate Flag is a strong statement, one that has the potential to stir up a riot.  It is not simple speech, it is hate speech.

Do the Sons of Confederate Veterans have a right to exist and to fly a flag of sedition?  Yes and yes.  But that does not mean that they have the right to use public land and facilities to exhibit their flag of historic animosity.  It is past time for all of us in the United States to move beyond racism and drop the old symbols of subjugation.