Catching Up, Part III – Congress (sort of) Repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Dateline December 18th, 2010

After 17 years it’s finally happened.  Congress has repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the law that allowed for gay & lesbian Americans to be forced out of the armed services regardless of their record has been stricken down.  Well, sort of.  Repeal, though passed by both the House and the Senate, still hinges on the top brass of all branches of the US Armed Forces to actually move forward on the matter.

Certainly this is a step in the correct direction but it could be months or years before this is actually carried out.  Until then, LGBT Americans are still subject to dismissal even if they are heroes simply because of what they do in their private lives that should be nobody’s damn business.

American society has always been behind the curve on societal changes regarding those whom we deem different that “make people uncomfortable”.  Slowly, but surely, we do eventually come around.  It took over 100 years to properly implement equality and civil rights into law for African Americans and other minorities.  LGBT rights are the new legal civil rights battle for the 21st century and I know we’ll get there in time.  Unfortunately while we drag our feet we look ridiculous and backwards to the rest of the world.

– “Left of Center”

Valerie Jarrett Was Flat Wrong

Image via Wikipedia

One of President Obama’s Senior Advisors, Valerie Jarrett’s claim that Justin Aarberg made a “lifestyle choice” by being gay.  One could infer from this that she may believe that all LGBT Americans actually actively make a choice about who they are. If this is how she thinks, that is a very sad outdated viewpoint.

To anyone who thinks that homosexuals choose to be that way, there’s only one question that needs to be asked. Did you have to make a conscious choice to be straight? I know I didn’t, so it stands to reason logically that homosexuals clearly do not choose to be gay. The only choice they make is whether or not to be open about it. They choose if they want to live with the scorn, hatred, disrespect and possible physical harm that potentially comes with sharing the truth about who they are.

President Obama looks to this woman for advice. We are on the cusp of a time in this country where we’re starting to see the LGBT community gaining the civil rights they have been denied for so long. Because of this, Valerie Jarrett needs to be made to truly apologize for her remarks. A disingenuous apology for if her comments “offended anyone” or a calling of her statements “inartful” or “poorly chosen” will not do. If Valerie Jarrett truly believes that being gay is a choice, then she not only needs to apologize, but President Obama needs to demand her resignation immediately.

Carl "The Nose" Paladino Prefers Theocracy Over The Constitution

 

Image by azipaybarah via Flickr

 

Carl “The Nose” Paladino would rather have a Federal government that makes and enforces laws based on enforcing Christian morals and viewpoints than to require that the government abide by the Constitution.  He said in a campaign visit with local Orthodox Jewish leaders that children shouldn’t be “brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t.”     (there is “…nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual.”)

In a single sentence, this small angry man has equated all LGBT persons in this country as being less than equal to straight people which he perceives as normal. In a single sentence he has shown us that his perception of homosexuals is the same as how, incorrectly and illegally, slaves were considered 1/3 of an individual at the founding of this country.

Mr. Paladino has said in the past if he wins the election, he would veto any bill that would give marriage rights to homosexuals. He claims to be a “defender of the sanctity of marriage”. As with all others that play that tired tune of keeping marriage “pure”, he would eagerly deny the Constitutional protection that is long overdue those who are no less human than anyone else. Regardless of the fact that marriage existed before Christianity, these people continue to sing the same old song and place themselves on the wrong side of history. Rational and clear thinking has started to, and will eventually overcome this, but in the meantime we have to deal with the reality of  candidates like Mr. Paladino.

This is a man who, by his own policy viewpoints, would gladly replace the separation of Church and State and the Constitution with Christian theocracy.

Update 10-11-10: New information came out today that Mr. Paladino did not say the words that are crossed-out above. They were in the prepared speech or notes, but he did not use them. The War On Logic, while at times hyperbolic and clearly having no love lost for the ignorance of any politician, does strive for accuracy in it’s reporting. So there you go, mistake corrected. We make an error, we’ll update with a correction. Imagine that.. This blog has more journalistic integrity than FOX News!

– “Left of Center”

Sources:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/226864_Carl_Paladino-_Kids_Shouldnt_B
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/10/carl-paladino-kids-shouldnt-be.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/10/carl-paladino-in-blast-at_n_757433.html

Proposition 8 – The Fervor With Gay Marriage – Part II

Image via Wikipedia

Touching up on this topic, I’d like to present some of the list of reasons that are utilized against the legalization of gay marriage:

• The “Un-Natural” Clause – This tends to be pretty popular. Gay/Lesbians that are “allowed” to marry is unnatural due to some arbitrary reason that is decided by a group of people (usually religiously inclined, but other reasons are provided).
• The “States’ Rights” Viewpoint – You’ll find this to be pretty popular with your “Libertarians” in this country. The viewpoint is mainly that the State Government (not the Federal Government) should be the ones to decide this.
• The “Slippery Slope” Argument – Allowing gay marriages will start creating other issues and other “un-natural” acts (stems from bullet point one) such as marrying animals.

Let’s be realistic here and examine these viewpoints and see how badly these “jusifications” fail:

• Un-Natural Clause – We used this to justify not having inter-racial marriages, but remember, there are other items that are considered un-natural (dictated by society or by religion or whatever arbitrary set of rules you want to make your life more difficult with).
• “States’ Rights” – This is an easy one, “States’ Rights” have repeatedly failed when it came to civil rights (slavery, Jim Crow laws, et. al.); don’t get me wrong, the Federal Government has messed up as well (Separate But Equal), but the states will have and will mess it up far worse. Civil rights have been proven to be a Federal issue and a 14th Amendment issue, and the topic of gay marriage is no different.
• Slippery Slope – Now this is just terrible. Anyone can use this argument; it is pretty baseless to begin with. That’s akin to a parent telling their child if studying is missed for one night, you’ll fail all your classes in school and never amount to anything in this world (notice how ridiculous and hyperbolic that sounds?).  The Slippery Slope is typically used when you have absolutely nothing of substance (basically, like all the other excuses) and try to make something from nothing.

More than anything though, why are we legislating such items? Where are the your anti-big government “Libertarians” coming out to shame these types of actions? Simply put, your “Libertarians” like Ron Paul use the “let the States decide” are not for liberty. Legislation of people’s lives at any level of the government (County, State, Federal) is the EXACT definition of Big Government.  How is legislation of a person’s private life and their rights/privileges at the State level more appropriate than the Federal level?  It isn’t is the correct and only answer, history and the example of slavery has proven that point very clearly.  An individual like myself (Classic Liberal) is against legislating morality, and people’s livelihoods (both public and private) as it is none of my business, nor should it be any of yours. Liberty and freedom doesn’t mean to place other in bondage according to your ideals.

The simple litmus test is this. Would you like any outsider dictating your personal life, and dictating with whom you can marry? You don’t? They should mind their own business you say? Well, you’re in the same boat with a lot of others, the difference is, you feel that the same consideration and respect should not be given to those who don’t think/act/behave like you. Take your own advice for once, and remember this, as long as the affairs of others do not violate your civil rights and privileges (hint: gay marriage does not), then you need not be concerned with their affairs and private lives.

– “Classic Liberal”

Proposition 8 – The Fervor With Gay Marriage – Part I

Image via Wikipedia

I feel this is a good topic for me to bring up, due to the fact that I’m vacationing in Southern California (beautiful place by the way) and this has been a big issue lately in the United States, so I’m using this as a “themed” topic for myself.

This item and the entire gay marriage debate has been a hot topic lately. You can argue this is our “Women’s Suffrage” or “Civil Rights” issue of today. Should people who are gay/lesbian “be allowed” to marry. Of course, I’ll be getting a lot of answers, mainly in the “NO” column more so than any other answer out there. I’ll also received a lot of “justifications” as to why the “NO” answer has been given, though a lot of the justifications don’t have any legs to stand on (usually they fall upon the typical they don’t like it, or throw religion as an answer, as well as other items that frankly don’t have much gravity).

Let me ask every straight couple that is married a few questions. Does having a gay/lesbian couple married changes your marriage to your spouse? Do you lose any of the privileges that come with marriage to your spouse (namely tax breaks, power of attorney, et. al.)? Are you suddenly going to get negative rights because a gay/lesbian couple got married?

For those that argue that marriage is “sacred” and utilize the religion route, let me remind everyone that marriage is a social contract, not a religious one. Before your Abrahamic religions hijacked marriage as their own, marriage was set up as a social and at times legal contract. You need sources? Sure, how about Hammurabi’s code (established before Judaism, Islam and Christianity’s existence), the history of marriage in Europe, China, and the like.

Let me tell you how sacred it is. With TV shows like the Bachelor, the Bachelorette, Who Wants To Marry A Millionaire and all these other nonsense items. Next time someone gets married, how about they ignore the paperwork they have to fill out in the county and rely on their church/tabernacle/mosque/other place of worship. Really, go ahead, tell me how that works out when you have some of the items I’ve listed in the third paragraph?

Here is what it comes down to. I value the “Equal Protection Clause” and am very against the “States Rights” statements people make when it comes to personal liberties and civil matters. Equal rights means exactly that, and equal privileges mean exactly that as well. A right is not a right when it can be given to some and not to others. A right is not a right when it can be taken away from you. We call those privileges, and if that’s is the case, marriage is a “privilege” to everyone, not to a group whom you agree with only.

As long as you’re willing to pick and choose when rights are applied and when rights are not applied, you don’t value liberty, and you surely don’t value the Constitution. Leave others alone to their way of life and extend the same privileges you get as well. If they are good enough to pay taxes, work, donate to charity, go to war, then surely they are good enough to have marriage as well.

– “Classic Liberal”