Sunday, November 30, 2008

"The Law is reason, free from passion." -Aristotle

I can’t move on from this argument. It’s personal for me, in many ways. I won’t stop.

If you believe marriage is a religious institution and a union from God, between a man and a woman, and something the government should not regulate, go ahead and continue to believe that. Fine.
But first, you will need to stop the benefits that come from marriage. You can’t be covered under your spouse’s health care. You can’t receive their retirement pensions when they die. You can’t make decisions for them when they become incapable of it. You will need your spouse’s family’s permission to visit your loved one if he or she is in the hospital. You can’t apply for a mortgage together. Or lease an apartment together. (So be prepared, because if your spouse has the mortgage or lease in his or her name and then they die, you will be evicted from your home or apartment.) If your spouse becomes sick or injured and you need to take time off of work, you’re not covered since the government no longer can create laws about marriage. When your spouse dies, you can’t make any funeral arrangements because you’re technically not “kin.” You can no longer get that tax benefit for being married, so you’ll each pay more taxes to Uncle Sam.

I could go on, but I’m sure you get my point.

Maybe at one point marriage was a religious institution. Maybe at some point it was something that only mattered within the church. But, the moment the government became involved it became a civil issue.

There are over 1000 benefits afforded to married individuals, and none have to do with the Church. None of them have to do with any Biblical commands or religious doctrines. They are all civil issues. So marriage is no longer a religious institution, it’s a civil institution.

Now, since I think I’ve made my point in saying that marriage is a civil issue, let’s talk about why same-sex couples should not be denied the right to marry and establish the kinship that marriage establishes.

In the Declaration of Independence, it was declared, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Our founding fathers acknowledged that all are equal and we have the Right to pursue happiness. What is marrying another woman is what makes me happy? It’s not harming anyone if it’s a consensual agreement between two adults.
Liberty as defined by Miriam-Webster is “the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privilege.” If I’m building my life with another woman we should be allowed to enjoy the economic rights, the political rights, and the social rights that marriage brings.

I’m sure the Founding Fathers never imagined that we’d be arguing over whether two men could marry one another or two women could marry one another, but I’m also sure, our Founding Fathers would be disappointed in the will of certain groups to write discrimination into our Constitution.

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Our founding fathers established in the preamble to the Constitution the mission with promoting the general welfare. The general welfare of an individual would be allowing that individual to marry any other consenting, non-relative adult that he or she pleases. And as you can see in an earlier paragraph, there are many legal benefits given to married individuals that help protect each other and help in the welfare of those two individuals. And again, in the Constitution, we have the idea of liberty and it’s blessings being secure for ourselves and those that come after us.

Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states, “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
Many people say that same-sex couples should be given domestic partnerships or civil unions, but these are only recognized in the state that they are issued, which is actually a violation of the U.S. Constitution as you can see here. And technically, if a same-sex couple gets married in Massachusetts, all states should honor it.

Amendment 1. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
If marriage is a religious institution then the government, Federal or State cannot make any laws about it; the Government should step aside and have no regulation over it. But my guess is that since there are over 1000 legal, government benefits to marriage, the Government doesn’t view marriage as an establishment of religion. If marriage is a religious institution, then you should be lobbying to take marriage away from the government regulating it in any way, not just regulating it to ban same-sex couples from marrying.

Amendment XIV. Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
According to the 14th Amendment, a state cannot make any law that would reduce or take away the privileges of an individual or a group. The passing of Prop 8 in California and the other anti-gay amendments do “abridge the privileges” of U.S. citizens. The passing of amendments in Arkansas and older laws in Florida that deny same-sex couples or gay individuals from adopting children is a clear example of a state denying U.S Citizens a privilege.
The last part of the Amendment says that states cannot “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The benefits of marriage offer protection to individuals, especially with regards to property and estate issues, financial issues, like when one spouse dies the other can keep receiving any pensions, retirement benefits, or military benefits. Because marriage offers many protections, the Government, Federal and States cannot deny it to same-sex couples.

I think and feel that the U.S Constitution is clear in saying that rights and privileges cannot be denied to certain individuals or specific groups. I think that because marriage is the way it is in the U.S., the government cannot deny that establishment to individuals, because its bars same-sex couples from receiving equal protection, which violates our Constitution.

Some will argue that is why there is a need for an amendment to the Constitution to specify marriage as being between one man and one woman. G.W. Bush endorses a Federal Amendment to limit marriage, as does Sarah Palin, and several other conservative leaders, religious leaders, and conservative individuals. While that seems like a good idea, according to our own Constitution, and how I understand it, it cannot happen.

The institution of marriage is not specifically defined within the U.S Constitution and therefore left up to the states, according to Amendment X. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Since marriage is not determined in the U.S. Constitution, it’s left to the States and an Amendment to the Constitution about it would be the U.S. Constitution contradicting itself. But the Constitution cannot contradict itself, according to Article VI. “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
I hear you all now saying that California and all the states that have passed their own laws defining marriage as something between one man and one woman has their right to do so because of this amendment. Article VI clears this up, too. The U.S. Constitution is the “law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound” to it. And we can step back to Amendment 14 when it says that a state cannot deny privileges or rights to U.S. citizens.

Same-sex couples are given the rights to marry one another in the U.S. Constitution. It may not have been explicitly stated, but our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, and it’s been amended in the subsequent years, to protect the citizens of this country, and that includes same-sex couples. (I should rewrite that sentence.)

(I used an article by John S. Dixon, "Homosexual (Same-sex) Marriages: An Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution" as presented on ReligiousTolerance.org.
I used many of his idea and a few of my own.)

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Gays are ruining children?

In recent notes I’ve talked about Prop 8 in California and same-sex marriage in general. I’ll step away from the same-sex marriage talk for a moment and address another anti-gay piece of legislation that passed on Election Day.

In Arkansas the people overwhelming approved of a measure to ban people that are “cohabitating outside a valid marriage” from adopting and/or serving as foster parents. While this law affected gays and straights alike, Jerry Cox, President of the Arkansas Family Council, the organization that led the efforts to pass this movement, has openly stated it’s an attempt to “blunt a homosexual agenda.” Cox also stated that, “the voters realized that this was about child welfare, rather than the rights of adults.”

Hmm. Child welfare was at stake? I concur with Mr. Cox, but disagree on who actually won this battle. The State of Arkansas currently has about 3,700 children in foster care and of those only 1,000 are available for adoption. That is 3,700 children living in foster homes or in group homes. It seems to me that children lost this battle.

As mentioned earlier, this ban affects straight people also. Under this new law, any person that is “cohabitating outside a valid marriage” will not be allowed to become a foster parent or adopt a child. Let’s see how this can play out. A few examples for those like me that need to see it how it actually affects people.

Example A. Lucy and Todd are married with a girl, Sarah. They die in a car crash. Lucy’s sister Michelle is living with her long-term boyfriend but they have not married yet. Michelle wants Sarah to live with her so that she is with family and wants to eventually adopt her to gain full guardianship. Well, under Arkansas’ new law, Michelle can’t do that unless she and her boyfriend get married or they no longer live together.

Example B. Lucy and Todd are married with a girl, Sarah. They die in a car crash. Lucy’s mother Barbra wants to adopt Sarah. Barbra lives with a “man-friend.” They’ve decided to not get married because it would cut their pensions and social security benefits. Well, under this new law in Arkansas, Barbra would not be allowed to adopt or even serve as a foster home for her own grandchild.

This law is part retroactive, I guess you could say. Unmarried, cohabitating couples that have adopted will continue to be parents to their child(ren). (Thankfully, the conservatives behind this weren’t mean enough to take children away from those that already adopted.) Those that are currently going through the adoption process are now not qualified to become adoptive parents or even foster parents. And those that are currently serving as foster parents- again, straight and gay people- are to relinquish the children they have to the state as of January 1, 2009. The number of children currently in foster care is about 400.

That’s 400 children that will no longer be in an actual home, coming home to two adults caring about how their day went or two loving adults to offer them cookies and milk or congratulate them on passing their test. Think about it. That will be a total of over 4,100 children in state custody that will be living in group homes.

Who really lost or won this battle?

I keep hearing these people talk about defeating the gay agenda. I don’t really know of any gay agenda, except to gain equal rights. The only agenda I see in this country is from a conservative group that wants to continue to oppress the LGBTQ community and treat LGBTQ persons as second-class citizens.

Here is a good op-ed in the NYTimes about this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/opinion/12savage.html

Some links to my sources.


http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/11/05/ap5651085.html

http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/2008/nov/05/rural-voters-christians-back-foster-adoption-ban/

http://fanniesroom.blogspot.com/2008/11/arkansas-adoption-ban.html

Still condemning same-sex marriages?

I wrote a note this weekend about same-sex marriage and the fight for LGBTQ people to have equal rights. After reading more articles and hearing more arguments against same-sex marriage, I thought I’d offer another view and opinion.

Many of the people that oppose same-sex marriage use their religion as an argument, often saying that homosexuality is a sin and that’s why we should fight it and ban same-sex marriage.

I’ll entertain the idea that homosexuality is a sin for this note. (I don’t believe people have a choice in their sexual orientation. Ask someone you know that’s gay if they chose to be gay. I’m sure they’ll all say “no.” Why would someone chose a lifestyle that alienates them, can often cause them to lose friends and family, and be denied rights in this country?) But I’ll go along, for the purpose of this note, and say that yes, it’s a choice and it’s a sin.

So we’re now denying people civil rights because of a sin in their life. Since you say being gay is a sin, I’m guessing you’re using a religious text, such as the Bible and can probably point out Romans 1. What I want you to do is skip over to Romans 3:23 where it says, “For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” Hmm. Need to reread that passage? What was the second word? ALL? Who sins? ALL. Interesting.

According to the Bible, and in the same book as the main passage that people use against homosexuality, everyone sins.

So my question is this: Why aren’t we taking away everyone’s civil rights? And do certain groups get to pick which rights are taken away from other groups?
Well, I believe drinking alcohol is wrong. So I want to take away the rights of Presbyterians to consume alcohol since a lot of them drink alcohol.

I’m playing about the alcohol part. I don’t think consuming alcohol is wrong and I have no problems with Presbyterians. I picked Presbyterians because one of my good friends, who will likely read this, is Presbyterian.

But do you get my point? If we can discriminate against a group because we perceive their lifestyle or a part of their life as sinful, then aren’t we being hypocritical, because we’re all sinners, according to the same Bible with which same-sex marriage opponents condemn LGBTQ persons and their relationships.

What are your thoughts?

Why Prop 8 should worry everyone.

I've been thinking about this since Wednesday and I've tried to organize my thoughts and be more eloquent, but I'm so upset about this that I don't think it's possible. So here are my thoughts, raw.



The passing of Prop 8 in California (and Prop 2 in Florida and the other anti-gay amendments and proposals that passed this week) should scare us all. No matter your sexual orientation or you personal beliefs about homosexuality, you should be worried that Prop 8 passed.

The passing of Prop 8 took away the rights, basic civil rights and liberties, of individuals. It has rewritten the California Constitution, making it now legal to discriminate against a particular group.

You may be wondering why it should scare you if you aren’t a part of the group that this mainly affects. Good question.

It should scare everyone because it shows that certain groups can throw enough money, lies, deceit, and power behind a measure and eliminate the rights of people. If they can do it to this one group, they can do it to you too.

The LDS Church was behind 1/3 of the money donated to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. And many other Christian groups were behind this amendment also. I see this as hypocritical. Christian groups talk about persecution around the world because of their religious beliefs, mainly in countries where another religion rules. But what they don’t see is that they are now the persecutors in this situation. They are deeming their values superior enough to deny rights to individuals, much like Islamic extremists think their religious values are superior and persecute Christians in their countries.

This attacking of the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer) Community is similar to Hitler and his tactics used against Jews. (I’m not at all equating the fight for same-sex marriage to the Holocaust. Millions died in the Holocaust and few have died in the fight for gay rights.) Hitler used the Jews as an excuse for why Germany was declining. Hitler blamed the problems of the nation on the Jews. Sound familiar? Remember when Jerry Falwell said gays and lesbians were part of the reason our country was attacked on 9/11?

And do you hear that argument from Evangelicals about how same-sex marriages will destroy marriage and families? Guess which faith/ belief group has the highest divorce rate? Evangelical Christians. The group with the lowest? Atheists and Agnostics. If you marriage is destroyed or less meaningful because two people of the same sex can get married? Your married was already in bad shape. It’s not someone else’s fault.

Christian groups are blaming the LGBTQ community for problems in our country. It’s a page straight from Hitler’s diary. Hitler started his extinction-attempt by denying civil rights to Jews.

Think about it.

You may be in the majority now and are not part of an oppressed group, but if you continue to allow a majority to tyranny a minority, you will be in the minority one day.

Many people are saying the courts should not be involved and that the people have spoken. But at one time the people spoke and it was against women, blacks, and other minorities. The courts then spoke up and guaranteed the equality that all Americans deserve.


In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

*****************************************


I don’t mean to attack one group. I’m sorry if I offend anyone. If you are offended, I’d encourage you to think about why this offends you and then send me a message about it. I have no problem with Evangelical Christians, I just think we should all think about this. Like I said earlier, you may be in the majority now, but you could very well be in the minority later.

Leave a comment or message me if you want to talk about it.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

The Beginning.

This is a beginning.  This is the beginning of a new openness to my life.  This is a new beginning and a new stage to voice my opinions.  Hopefully, someone will enjoy what I write and conversations will follow.

I chose the name "Conversate" to show that I want to have a place to voice my opinions and have others respond.  I want to have a conversation with the world and my Facebook notes have a limited audience.  

I will post some old blogs of mine and hopefully people will begin to read them.

Just a little about me:

I live in Alabama.  I'm a graduate student, studying for a Masters in Social Work.  No, I don't want to take children away from people.  I want to be an advocate.  I want to be a community organizer.