October 30, 2010

Talking Points on Civil Unions and Gay Marriage

Posted in Comic Editorial, gay, government tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 12:22 am by justinadayswork

Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships are not equal to “Gay Marriage” for two reasons: One, separate is not equal. Two, a state-level Civil Union or Domestic Partnership still denies gay couples thousands of federal rights granted to straight couples

 

There is no such thing as Gay Marriage. There is only Marriage, and it is open to every American citizen or it is not. No one ever got down on one knee and said “will you gay marry me”

 

The Defense Against Marriage Act, DOMA, passed during the Clinton administration is unconstitutional because it defies the Full Faith and Credit clause that ensures that laws in one state be honored by all states. Any legislation passed that defies the constitution cannot stand

 

All constitutional amendments passed by states to deny marriage to gay couples are erroneous. State constitutions must be in concert with the Federal Constitution to be valid in law

 

This is not a States Rights Issue. Framer James Madison made very clear that the language of the 10th amendment which introduced the concept of States Rights and Federalism say that “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.” and not “The powers not expressly delegated…” This has been interpreted through centuries of case law to mean that a power need not be expressly and necessarily granted to the federal government to still be within the providence of the federal government. The federal government can implement principles from the federal constitution, primarily through the courts,  and override state law. Brown v Board of Education in 1954 decided among other things (such as separate is not equal and the implementation of equal protection under the law) that a single state did not have the right to decide issues pertaining to rights in the Federal Constitution.

 

Marriage is a civil right. This precedent was set in 1967 in the landmark case Loving v Virginia which declared on a national level that to prevent interracial marriages was unconstitutional stated in its opinion that “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man”

 

 

 

And finally, a main reason Governor Lingle gave for why she vetoed Civil Union Bill HB444 in Hawai’i was that she did not want Civil Unions to be her legacy.

 

There are two other legacies that I would like to discuss, and in our adult-dominated world, often ignored.

 

They are that of the 82 year old couple who have for their whole lives been fighting prejudice and injustice, who now can’t hold each others hand as one dies in the hospital because his partner was denied visitation rights

 

The other is that of the 15 year old kid, that wants nothing more to be normal, seeing messages of a life of difference and abnormality because of  who he or she is that are reflected in the laws of our society, and is so filled with the inner turmoil and self-hate that comes with being an outcast in your own country — a legally codified outcast — that they reach for a rope instead of seeking equal opportunity.

 

 

Which legacy do you want on your hands?

Advertisements

May 9, 2010

Modify It!

Posted in Comic Editorial, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , at 3:30 pm by justinadayswork

So somehow I randomly started watching the Alabama Republican Gubernatorial debate. They all agree with each other. The only way to differentiate them is to see who answers a question more articulately.

But let me be more specific. There are a few concepts and terms with which every candidate agrees. Allow me to address one:

The legitimate use of the term “unborn baby” in the english language

I’m gonna be blunt. An “unborn baby” is not a baby

How can you be a baby if you are not yet born?

If you have to put a modifier in front of a word in order to properly describe something, you are no longer describing the same thing. You are describing something different. See, one baby has been born into this world, one baby has not. There’s something different about an “unborn baby.” And if it is so important to recognize that distinction, there’s something awry with calling it or treating it as the same thing.

There’s a word for an unborn baby. It’s called a fetus. So let’s stop equating abortion with the death of an actual baby without an umbilical cord that lives, eats, and breathes in the actual world. And doesn’t need a vernacular modifier.

This same concept even applies for gay marriage. Until the country / world sees gay marriage as simply marriage, it will always be different and lesser.

Baby, will you gay marry me?

April 6, 2010

The Bible Tells me so

Posted in Comic Editorial tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 10:02 pm by justinadayswork

Leviticus 20:13: A man shall not lieth with another man as he lieth with a woman. It is an abomination unto G-d

Look, here’s the thing. I really don’t think Leviticus was against homosexuality. I think Leviticus just knew that God was a really astute anatomist.

Well, that certainly can’t go there…

February 8, 2010

Dear God it’s What Rachel Thinks!

Posted in Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 5:08 pm by justinadayswork

So a Reverend wrote in to the Providence Journal decrying a freedom from religion as totalitarian (chillingly so!)

I wrote back, in another edition of Dear God it’s What Rachel Thinks

Reverend:

blah … blah blah blah. There is no freedom from religion.

DGIWRT:

With all due respect to the Rev. Roman R Manchester, his interpretation of the First Amendment is incorrect. There is, in fact, a freedom from religion. As the Rev. aptly quoted, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This does mean that “Congress cannot regulate religious establishments,” but also that it can make no law that regulates the rights or lives of others based on religion. If the government “Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it cannot establish a law that affects me based on religion, such as allowing school prayer, preventing access to birth control, and prohibiting gay marriage.

You might respond that not having school prayer, distributing birth control, and legalizing gay marriage infringes on your right regarding “…The free exercise thereof (religion),” because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. But this right is a personal right, a passive right. It is the right for you to believe and express your religion on your own time in your own home or chosen place of worship. It is not, nor has it ever been, the right to enforce those beliefs on others or society as a whole. What other people do does not limit your ability to personally exercise your religion. Freedom of religion can only stand when Freedom from religion stands with it.

Sorry, just not my bag. I’d rather watch The L Word

***Don’t forget to check out http://www.eclecticart.wordpress.com and http://www.delinquentdesigns.wordpress.com***

DO IT!

January 26, 2010

“Teaching” Homosexuality when we are Young

Posted in Comic Editorial, Uncategorized tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , at 12:03 am by justinadayswork

Wowza! It’s been a while since my last post. I guess it’s because I’ve been frolicking on tropical islands. Sorry kids.

But here’s another Dear God it’s what Rachel Thinks!!!

I’ve been thinking about the idea of introducing the concept of homosexuality to kids, especially very young kids. Many argue that they are not ready to hear about homosexuality.

But there’s an important distinction that needs to be made, and that is between introducing the idea of homosexuality, and the idea of homosexual sex

The reality is that kids learn about about heterosexuality from day one. Mom and Dad. Adam and Sarah next door. They learn about the concept of men and women being partners, and they do so, until probably age 6 or so, without learning about heterosexual sex. So when they do learn about sex, it comes with a background of a lifetime of seeing societally-sanctioned relationships. The sex is coupled with the partnership.

Then kids learn about homosexuality. But what’s the first thing they learn? They don’t learn that Adam and Rob are partners, they learn that Adam and Rob as people who have sex. Think back to the first time you heard about homosexuality. Was it about a 20 year relationship, or was it about fucking?

Homosexuals are introduced to children not as people who are partners, but as people who have sex with each other. When it’s only about sex, and not about partnership and love, it can be contorted to be a sin, immoral, depraved, and wrong with much greater ease. After all, the bible only condemns homosexual sex (or it is argued that it does), not going out for coffee with some hot girl you like. And the concept is also contrary to what kids have grown up learning. New things are scary.

Now what if we did this.

What if instead of showing our kids how men and women can be partners, and later reveal that they have sex, we show them that men and women can be partners, men and men can be partners, and women and women can be partners, and later, when kids are ready to learn about any kind of sex, we reveal it across the board.

That way, when people first get their impressions of homosexuality, it’s not of some depraved sex act. It’s of a healthy partnership, just like the one they learned about seeing Mom and Dad. Then when sex gets introduced, homosexuals will perhaps not be seen solely as sexually deviants, but as just normal people, who, well, happen to have sex.

 

Grandma, is that moral deviance I see?