Those who understand binary

Ivy League Cornell sides with Olbermann over Coulter

2009-03-10T13:25:00.000-07:00

Last week, one of our favorite loud-mouth "conservatives" Ann Coulter decided to call into question her long-time rival Keith Olbermann's Ivy League credentials:

Indeed, Keith is constantly lying about his nonexistent "Ivy League" education, boasting to Playboy magazine, for example: "My Ivy League education taught me how to cut corners, skim books and take an idea and write 15 pages on it, and also how to work all day at the Cornell radio station and never actually go to class."

Except Keith didn't go to the Ivy League Cornell; he went to the Old MacDonald Cornell.

The real Cornell, the School of Arts and Sciences (average SAT: 1,325; acceptance rate: 1 in 6 applicants), is the only Ivy League school at Cornell and the only one that grants a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Keith went to an affiliated state college at Cornell, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (average SAT: about that of pulling guards at the University of South Carolina; acceptance rate: 1 of every 1 applicants).

Olbermann's incessant lying about having an "Ivy League education" when he went to the non-Ivy League ag school at Cornell would be like a graduate of the Yale locksmithing school boasting about being a "Yale man."

Unfortunately, Ms. Coulter didn't do much fact checking, but since she went to Cornell herself, it seems that many Cornell alumni, who have responded to her article being posted on Digg and other sites, think that she knows she is lying and is up to her usual tricks (lying to and misleading the ignorant masses and hoping that they eat up her excrements like dog food). Fine examples of people eating up her poo without checking the facts are available at The Weekly Standard, Right Wing News, and of course Red Eye on Fox News. Are we surprised?

So, I emailed a short note to Cornell University and here was their response:

Dear Tammie,

Many people have contacted us about the false and negative statements about Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences being made by Ann Coulter in the media recently.

Cornell as a whole--and all of its colleges--are considered "Ivy League." The term "Ivy League" was initially used by sportswriters, and became the official name in 1954 of the NCAA Division I athletic conference to which Cornell belongs. The "Ancient Eight" are Cornell, Princeton, Brown, Yale, Dartmouth, University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, and Harvard. Additionally, CALS admits 1 out of every 5 applicants, as does the College of Arts & Sciences.

Please feel free to watch Mr. Olbermann's response on his Countdown show at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/29539156#29539156

Thank you for your concern about the College.

Sincerely,

Ellen Leventry
Web Communications Specialist
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Cornell University

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I already knew what the response was going to be since this information is readily available on the web, but whenever in doubt, it's not really that hard to get the truth straight from the horse's mouth. There are a few things that really disturb me about Ann Coulter's never-ending antics, however.

First, if this were the real world, this kind of stunt could ruin an innocent person's life. Accusing someone of lying about their education and resume padding is a huge deal. Even after all the facts have been brought out into the open and the controversy cleared up, the effort leaves a bad taste in people's mouths and that air of doubt can follow you for the rest of your life, especially when people like Fox News continue to perpetuate what they know are lies. Despite the "concerned" comments of some conservatives of those blogs, Olbermann isn't going to have much of an issue at work since "Ivy League" Cornell recognizes him as one of their alumni, and he has been invited to and has given their senior convocation speech as an alumni. Fortunately, people who have gone to a university know that they are all separated into colleges, and while each college generally has its own admission standards and breadth requirements, academically, they all tend to be similar. For my fellow Alumni, it would be like me saying that I went to the "real" Cal because I was in the College of Letters and Science and you went to the "fake" Cal and can't boast a true Berkeley education because you were in the College of Natural Resources. Yes, it's stupid, I know. Furthermore, Coulter takes advantage of the fact that the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is a contract institution. All this means is that it is a private institution that gets part of its funding from the state. No, it does not mean that it is a public state college with lower admission standards that has a minor affiliation with Cornell. But Coulter, leaving the rest to your imagination, perpetuates that blatant lie. She loves taking advantage of the ignorant.

Second, I find Coulter's "Old MacDonald" comment incredibly offensive and elitist. I've known a few people who have gone to agriculture schools, and the science of growing food and feeding America and the world is really nothing to snub your nose at. Agriculture schools tend to be very heavy on the sciences, like biology, chemistry, and genetics. Just because the name of the college has "Agriculture" in it doesn't mean that you go there to become a farmer. The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) is one of the best biological sciences institutions in the country and includes the disciplines of Biological Engineering and Applied Economics and Management. CALS is one of the few places in the Ivy League where you can get an degree in Communication, which is Olbermann's degree. Again, all of these can be found on Cornell University's web site. Of course, she doesn't mention any of this in her interview on Red Eye on Fox News and instead puts on a show that has the hosts rolling in her muck like pigs. They make fun of his one response to a slanderous attack on his credibility as "petty" while they are the ones continuing to drive the issue into the ground, allowing Coulter to continue to comment on the subject and mislead people. /rolling eyes

Lastly, "conservatives" like Ann Coulter spend an awful lot of time crapping on their own base, while their followers are quick to defend being crapped on. She basically insults much of middle America and our "Old MacDonald" farmers because she thinks that her Ivy League education is superior and mutually exclusive to the discipline of feeding our ever-growing humanity. And sadly, many conservative Americans just take in her garbage without question, as demonstrated by their delight in passing this story along, intent on flaming Keith Olbermann, rather than examining the facts behind her words or what she is really saying about some of our own people. In fact, many even make the effort to give thumbs down ratings to actual Cornell alumni and others' comments on YouTube who are trying to clear up her lies with facts. All it demonstrates is their aversion to the truth and their neverending quest to make sure as few people are exposed to it as possible.

Who are the champions of marriage equality? African Americans, Mormons, Jews, Christians, and the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, of course

2009-02-08T00:00:00.000-08:00

The day after the election, many people were jumping all over an exit poll statistic published on CNN that indicated that 70% of African Americans voted yes on Prop 8. In the weeks that followed, commentary on this particular statistic showed up all over the discussion boards. Some same-sex marriage supporters felt that African Americans, who had been subjected to discrimination themselves, should have recognized and rejected discrimination against other minorities. Then there were comments like this on the Facebook group discussions from African Americans who supported Prop 8, and who decided that this poll statistic gave them license to speak for their entire race:

Wondered why so many African Americans voted YES on prop 8? You thought we were going to vote NO because you thought we would somehow relate ourselves to the civil rights movement back in the days? Nope. This just shows that majority of African American agree gay rights movement is NOT a civil rights movement. Dont even try to relate the two. They are not the same. Thanks

I found this "equality for me but no equality for you" attitude incredibly alarming, and sadly, this one exit poll contributed to the many comments on blogs and forums from African Americans who felt that being African American gave them the authority to determine whether the fight for Marriage Equality and gay rights in general was legitimate. I personally didn't know any African American who voted yes on Prop 8, so it was hard for me to believe that this support was so overwhelming. Additionally, African American Clergy leaders had released an open letter to their fellow members about their opposition to Prop 8:

If Jesus’ ethic, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” means anything to us, wouldn’t we want to do the right thing for others that we want done for ourselves? Imagine this scene: when asked on the day of judgment to give an account of how you treated your lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender sisters and brothers on earth, would you be honestly be proud in saying, “Lord, I changed the constitution to block their right, their pride and their dignity to marry?” And how would you feel when Jesus responds to you with the words from Matthew 25:40: “In as much as you’ve done it unto the least of these members of the family, you’ve done it unto me?”

I was seriously wondering, who were these people who thought it was okay to vote to take away a right that our fellow citizens already had? Meanwhile, no one seemed to bring up the fact that Jews overwhelming opposed Prop 8. In a poll of L.A. Jews, 78% opposed Prop 8, 8% supported it, and the rest declined to respond. If I were going to extrapolate any information from this, I would point out that while polls are not always accurate, it is quite significant that any random poll would show that 92% of Jews did not support Prop 8 and 78% outright opposed it. Now if we are going to compare minorities who have suffered from discrimination (and what minority hasn't suffered from discrimination?), I'm not sure which is worse: having your people enslaved for hundreds of years or having 6 million of your people exterminated from the earth? Not to mention that no one group has a monopoly on slavery... slavery still exists. Unfortunately, human trafficking still has a place in this world. I think the point is that you can't compare the experiences of one group to another. So to those who felt it was necessary to comment on the legitimacy of the opinion of a Black person who voted yes on Prop 8 "because they obviously know what discrimination is", how about the legitimacy of the opinions of the overwhelming majority of Jews who voted no on Prop 8? While there was a rift between the beliefs of orthodox Jews and mainstream and progressive Jews, many rabbis were outspoken in summarizing the viewpoint of most of the Jews in our state:

"We Jews have been the brunt of a lot of discrimination throughout our history," said Rabbi Elliot Dorff, rector at American Jewish University (AJU). "To vote now that another group should be discriminated against is not at all respectful of what freedom has meant for us as Jews."

Minority rights carry special resonance for the Jewish nation, said many Proposition 8 critics -- especially in light of the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht last week.

"Jews understand what it means to eliminate rights -- that's what happened to us in Germany," said Rabbi Denise Eger, spiritual leader of Congregation Kol Ami in West Hollywood.

After several weeks of speculation about why African Americans seemed to have so overwhelmingly voted against equality, the Public Policy Institute of California released a study on actual voting data (not poll data) that indicated that the initial poll statistic was seriously overblown and that the number was probably closer to 57%. In summary, it says that it had more to do with socioeconomics and education, not race, and Prop 8's biggest support came from white conservatives, born-again Christians, and low-income voters. According to this study, in groups with higher income and education, Prop 8 failed across all races, including African Americans. In groups with lower income and education, Prop 8 passed across all races.

I was so relieved to hear that support for Prop 8 among any racial group, including African Americans, failed to exceed the 50's, period. The NAACP and other groups have already called for everyone to stop saying that "African Americans passed Prop 8." African Americans supporters of same-sex marriage were able to come out and decry those conclusions based on that flimsy statistic and rightly so. And if I was an LGBT African American, having been subjected to discrimination both as an African Americans and as a LGBT American, and who probably got the worst of it from both sides after the election, this might have provided some consolation. Maybe. (At least some apologies are in order, IMHO.)

What is the lesson to be learned from all this? For those of us fighting for marriage equality for our fellow Americans, one question we should always ask ourselves is "What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do?" Would he have posted comments in the discussion boards decrying all religion? Would he have encouraged any of us to show up at protests with signs that degraded our fellow Mormon and Catholic Americans? Would he have promoted an "equality for me but no equality for you" attitude? I don't think so. I believe Dr. King would have reminded us that LGBT Americans are Mormons, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Black, White, Asian, Latino, young, old... and that all their allies are equally diverse. He would have reminded us that what makes us American is our respect for diversity, and that we should celebrate and cherish what makes us different. He would have reminded us to praise those Mormons who support marriage equality, especially those like Andrew Callahan, the Mormon High Priest who is being excommunicated from the Mormon Church for speaking out against the Mormon Church's role in the Prop 8 campaign. When people like Andrew Callahan sacrifice for those they don't even know, it confirms to me what I know to be true: that this is something worth fighting for and that we are on the right side of history.

For anyone who continues to doubt that this is a civil rights issue, who thinks that Martin Luther King, Jr. would not support LGBT rights and same-sex marriage, I'd like to share some choice words from civil rights leaders who actually fought for civil rights with him, including members of his own family:

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
- Coretta Scott King, civil rights leader, widow of Martin Luther King, Jr., at 25th anniversary luncheon for Lambda Defense and Education Fund, March 31, 1998

"We are now at such a crossroads over same-sex couples' freedom to marry. It is time to say forthrightly that the government's exclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters from civil marriage officially degrades them and their families. It denies them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It denies them numerous legal protections for their families.

This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry."
- John Lewis, civil rights leader, speaker and organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his "I Have a Dream" speech, Boston Globe, October 25, 2003

"We have spent most of our lives struggling against the oppression of African-Americans and other groups within our society who are the objects of discrimination and prejudice. And we consider our ministry with and for the GLBT community to be an extension of that life-long commitment."
- Rev. Bob Graetz and his wife Jeannie. Rev. Graetz was the only white minister to march with Martin Luther King, Jr. during the Montgomery Bus Boycott

"We have come a long way. And while the scars and stains of racism remain, the fact is, racial discrimination is no longer legal. However, discrimination under the rule of law still exists. If you are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, you do not have the same rights as other Americans. You cannot marry. And while there has been some progress, thanks to the work this organization [Out & Equal Workplace Advocates] in the workplace, you still face discrimination in the workplace, and in our armed forces. For a nation that prides itself on liberty, justice and equality for all, this it totally unacceptable."
- Yolanda King, daughter of Martin Luther King Jr., at the 2006 Out and Equal Workplace Summit in Chicago

"Homophobia is hate, and hate has no place in the beloved community."
- Martin Luther King III, son of Martin Luther King, Jr., August 2003, at the 40th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."
- Mildred Loving, of Loving v. Virginia, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court that overturned all state bans on interracial marriage in 1967 and established the right to marry the person of one's choice as a fundamental right, in her statement "Loving for All", which marked the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia

"No parallels between movements for rights is exact. African-Americans are the only Americans who were enslaved for more than two centuries, and people of color carry the badge of who we are on our faces. But we are far from the only people suffering discrimination -- sadly, so do many others. They deserve the law's protection and they deserve civil rights too. Sexual disposition parallels race -- I was born black and I had no choice. I couldn't and wouldn't change if I could. Like race, our sexuality isn't a preference -- it is immutable, unchangeable, and the Constitution protects us against prejudices based on immutable differences."
- Julian Bond, Chairman of the Board of the NAACP, civil rights leader who helped organize student protests at Atlanta University during the Civil Rights Movement, at the 2008 National Conference on LGBT Equality

"I'd be disappointed if we did not approve this resolution. I think it would be consistent with our historic spirit of fairness and justice. But it also would be consistent with the spirit of grace and mercy as the path to peace and that you judge not that you not be judged."
- Andrew Young speaking about a United Church of Christ resolution affirming same-gender marriage equality. Young, a close friend of Dr. King during the civil rights movement, is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and mayor of Atlanta. UCC Article, July 1, 2005

"Gays and lesbians have a more difficult time than we did. We had our families and our churches on our side. All too often, they have neither."
- Rev. Dr. James Lawson is a distinguished United Methodist pastor who worked side-by-side with Dr. King training the young people who staged the lunch counter sit-ins and the Freedom Rides.

For many people who are ignorant around the history of marriage equality, as you can see, it was the African American leaders of the Civil Rights Movement who lead the way for marriage equality, long before Prop 8 ever came about. I think that the last quote from an African American reverend is so apropos, considering that 1 in 3 teen suicides is of an LGBT teenager, and teens whose parents react negatively to their coming out to them are 8 times more likely to try to commit suicide. For anyone who continues to think that the plight of LGBT Americans cannot be compared to those of other minorities, you are right, at least on that point. Just ask Matthew Shepard, Bobby Griffith, and Anna Wallner.

"Fidelity" puts faces to the people whose marriages are being invalidated by Prop 8

2009-02-05T20:06:00.000-08:00

Courage Campaign created a video called "Fidelity" that puts some faces to the 36,000 people (and their families) whose marriages are being invalidated by Prop 8. I got all emotional when I watched this and so did my husband. Here are all these people who were finally able to fulfill a lifelong dream, an American dream, when they married their life partners in front of family and friends in beautiful ceremonies all over California. For those people who voted yes on Prop 8 and still insist that Prop 8 wasn't about hurting people, I have to ask, why are other families' happiness any of your business? How does their happiness affect you at all? The truth is, it's none of our business and it doesn't affect the rest of us at all, but the Prop 8 campaign did a heck of a job lying and convincing people that it does. But you know what? When there are people in this country who are hell bent on hurting our fellow Americans, that *is* my business. It is all our business as Americans. Please share this video and remember to sign the petition urging the California Supreme Court to preserve these marriages.

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

To contrast the declarations of love, happiness, commitment, and family that so many people were able to make between June and November last year, I just wanted to share some actual footage of the hate and bigotry of the Prop 8 campaign. If this doesn't make you sick, then I don't know what else to say.

Here is a Prop 8 campaigner using the same hateful dialog Anita Bryant and her supporters did for California's Briggs Initiative and others like it:

This one offended and angered the Jewish Community. The Anti-Defamation League demanded an apology and of course, the Prop 8 folks refused:

"Prayers for Bobby" now available to watch on myLifetime.com

2009-02-05T17:38:00.000-08:00

For anyone who saw my post on the Lifetime movie "Prayers for Bobby" but missed it or any of the encores over the last couple weeks, you can watch the full movie here:

http://www.mylifetime.com/on-tv/full-movies/prayers-for-bobby-coming-this-wed/video/6622754001

You can also download the full movie from iTunes. Based on the book Prayers for Bobby: A Mother's Coming to Terms with the Suicide of Her Gay Son, the first half of the movie deals with Bobby's coming out to his Christian family and especially the reaction of his devout mother, Mary Griffith, who is played by Sigourney Weaver. The second half deals with Mary coming to terms with Bobby's tragic suicide, her reconciling of her faith and her beliefs about homosexuality, and her journey to becoming a gay rights activist.

I hope that this movie will continue to be a powerful tool for us to engage and educate people about the consequences of religious bigotry, and I encourage everyone to pass this on to others who might benefit from watching it. Special thanks to Erica, one of the founders of the "Christians for Marriage Equality" group on Facebook for making sure that anyone who missed it knows that they can still watch it online.

Amazon.com Widgets

Homosexuality, the animal kingdom, and same-sex marriage

2009-01-19T12:00:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, I read an article about gay penguins at a zoo in Northern China that I thought was cute and meaningful. Apparently, the pair had been segregated from the colony for disturbing other couples during hatching time. They wanted to be parents so badly that they were trying to steal eggs from other couples by substituting them with rocks. Awww. /pat

After protests from zoo visitors, they were given a chance to act as foster parents and were found to be the best parents out of the lot:

In response, zookeepers gave the pair two eggs laid by an inexperienced first-time mother.

"We decided to give them two eggs from another couple whose hatching ability had been poor and they've turned out to be the best parents in the whole zoo," said one of the keepers.

"It's very encouraging and if this works out well we will try to arrange for them to become real parents themselves with artificial insemination."

In the wild, or at least as depicted in March of the Penguins,the conditions are so harsh for penguins when they are raising their offspring that sometimes the parents don't make it. I imagine that the orphans tend to get adopted by other couples of the group, most likely the ones who don't (or can't) have their own offspring. Same-sex penguin mates obviously can't have offspring with each other, but the urge to raise offspring is innate and strong. From an aspect of nature and survival, having as many offspring as possible make it to adulthood makes sense, and so it seems that there is a purpose to be found in having mates, who cannot have offspring with each other, adopt and care for other offspring whose parents cannot finish the work.

Researchers have known about the existence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom for decades. In recent years, we've had a scattering of news in popular media of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, including gay flamingos adopting and raising offspring to discussions about the sexual behaviors of some of our closest primate relatives, the bonobos. Several years ago, Central Park Zoo's gay penguins had sparked a debate on whether homosexuality in the animal kingdom could be extrapolated to humans:

Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at UC Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said.

That being said, in regard to human parenting, research has shown that the children of same-sex parents fare just as well as opposite parents, and as Dr. Judith Stacey says at this end of the following video, recent studies have shown that same-sex parents are often more committed parents, because like any other infertile couple, there are no accidents... their parenting is deliberate. She also clarifies James Dobson's distortions on her research that children fare better in a home with a mother and a father. She was comparing biological married parents with divorced and single parents, and since no same-sex couples were in her study at all, that research cannot be used to imply that children fare better in a home with a mother and a father as opposed to same-sex parents.

When a child ends up in the foster care system in our country, most likely they are orphaned, taken away from unsuitable parents, or given up by parents who can't or won't care for them. What a gift it is for those children to be adopted by parents who very much want to love, cherish, and care for them, especially if they had suffered abuse, were orphaned, or have some condition that makes them less desirable for some parents. Thankfully, a judge in Florida acknowledged this and overturned their decades-long ban on gay adoption. I believe that all children deserve to be raised in a loving and stable home, and if possible, in a family that is protected by the legal status, protections, and responsibilities of marriage. Considering that thousands of children are being raised by same-sex couples, the fact that we would force any children to be raised "out of wedlock" by denying their parents the right to marry makes no sense to me.

This leads into some important questions. Should marriage be based on the split second union of a sperm and egg, or should it be based the foundation required for the 18 years of hard work afterward (love)? If we observe, think, reason, and reconsider our beliefs, just as Galileo did when he observed the heavens and concluded that the earth moves when the Bible tells us that it doesn't (Psalms 104:5), is it possible to reconcile our observations and our understanding of the world with our religious beliefs? Procreation isn't all about uniting a sperm and an egg. As we've seen, the work does not stop there. For those people who feel that this is about "nature," I think that by observing nature and the world around us, the evidence speaks for itself.

Technology and the No on Prop 8 campaign

2009-01-14T10:25:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to make a suggestion in the hopes that someone from Equality California, the Human Rights Campaign, and other organizations that are fighting for marriage equality might read this. The Protect Marriage folks seriously out-campaigned Equality California on the grassroots front AND on the technology front. Here is just one example. Before the election, when I wanted to get lawn signs, I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to get them. If you were running the No on Prop 8 campaign and your supporters Googled "No on Prop 8 lawn signs" and the first hit they saw was not *your* site with a title of "Where to get lawn signs," then you seriously screwed up there. As a matter of fact, I knew how to get those bright-yellow-shiny-happy-people Yes on Prop 8 signs before I figured out where to find No on Prop 8 signs. It was all over the discussion groups that other people were looking for yard signs too. There were many would-be activists wanting to help, but no one could find this basic information. You can't imagine how frustrating that was! Any political campaign that hopes to do well these days better have someone on their Technology team that is well-versed in the craft of Search Engine Optimization (SEO). I still have trouble finding resources I need from your sites. So please... do us all a favor and hire an SEO consultant, PLEASE.

California's broken and abused initiative process: Using direct democracy to take away rights

2009-01-11T01:00:00.000-08:00

California's initiative process allows Californians to enact legislation directly through ballot initiatives. An initiative measure requires a certain number of signatures to quality (5% of the votes cast for the last gubernatorial election for a statute, 8% for an amendment) and then a simple majority to pass. Once a process that was meant to ensure that power be kept away from wealthy political machines controlling our state legislature, it has now become a process controlled by wealthy political machines, many from out-of-state, who have the financial resources to put self-serving initiatives on the ballot and shell out large amounts of propaganda to the masses. Without any controls on what kind of information those campaigns put out, they often misrepresent the impact of those initiatives in an attempt to woo voters, as so many of us witnessed during the Prop 8 campaign.

In the fight for marriage equality, we could have a measure that amends the constitution with a new definition of marriage whenever it gets enough signatures to qualify, which seems a little ridiculous to me. A legal status such as marriage, a status on which the validity of other legal documents is based, should never be put up to a popular vote. It undermines the stability of our government and our legal system, and because the right to marry the person of one's choice is a fundamental right that is aligned with our constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness, Prop 8 was nothing but an egregious attack on the dignity and happiness of our fellow Americans.

People have been complaining about California's initiative system for a while now and how it is easier to write discrimination into our constitution than to pass legislation that will help alleviate our crumbling infrastructure. It seems great in theory because it embodies "popular sovereignty," but it is one of the reasons why California has become so difficult to govern. Once government can no longer govern effectively and no longer works for the people, then this form of "democracy" truly fails, and the people become the victims of their own "tyranny," so to speak. Ironically, the initiative process violates the principles of republicanism, which was put forth by the Founding Fathers of our country and ingrained in the U.S. Constitution. According to Jules Tygiel, a professor of history at San Francisco State University and author of Ronald Reagan and the Triumph of American Conservatism,the initiative process was born out of liberal fears and frustration of elected officials and goes against true conservative ideals, as well as undermines our democracy:

At the behest of Progressive Gov. Hiram Johnson, the Legislature added the initiative, referendum and recall to the California Constitution in 1911.
As a rule, liberals, who feared corporate privilege and professed faith in the ability of the masses to govern, championed direct democracy. Conservatives, who advocated laissez-faire economics and feared the tyranny of the majority, opposed it. Johnson's father, Grove, derided supporters of direct democracy. "The voice of the people is not the voice of God, for the voice of the people sent Jesus to the cross," he admonished.

Many people are now coming to realize how broken and abused our initiative process is, including the Libertarian Party, who had this to say about Prop 8 on their official blog:

The Libertarian Party officially opposes marriage as an institution of government--both gay and straight marriages. "Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships," says the Party's platform. However, some Libertarians argue that until marriage ceases to become a government-licensed institution, there should be equality in it regardless of sexual orientation.
Regardless of the issue specifically with gay marriage, the problem with direct democracy in this case is that the people felt that they had a right to restrict, regulate, prohibit or limit the relationships of their neighbors, and in a system where the majority rule, it certainly was in their authority to do so.
This is not to say that direct democracy could never work, but it could only do so in a libertarian utopia that could also foster voluntarily socialism, societal anarchy or a number of other systems of order that rely on the perfect behavior of those governed. In order for direct democracy to work without violating the rights of others, those citizens who voted would have to have an absolute understanding of and dedication to property rights and individual liberty—something that is extremely unlikely to ever exist.
There is no place for any broad use of direct democracy in a free society because the majority does not always respect the rights of the whole. Even by a simple test against our platform, direct democracy does not stand up to the phrase: "No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government."

I have to agree that unless we live in a utopia where every single person respected each other as human beings and was informed and dedicated to upholding the rights of everyone else, direct democracy might not be a very good idea. I think our Founding Fathers had it right. So unless we want to continue down this path of our great state imploding on itself, maybe it's time for a little change.

Blue-eyes vs. brown-eyes: Honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

2009-01-10T22:18:00.000-08:00

I recently came across this gem, a link to a PBS documentary called A Class Divided, about an Iowa schoolteacher who did an exercise with her class by separating the blue-eyed kids and the brown-eyed kids in order to give the kids first-hand experience in the meaning of discrimination. My son and I watched the beginning of it yesterday before school, and being about the same age as the kids in the documentary, he was so intrigued that he wanted to skip school to finish watching it. /grin

My teachers did something similar when I was in grade school, although definitely not to that extent, but it still left an impression on me... it was a lesson in equality and discrimination I would never forget. When I started this blog, it was to my parents and those teachers that I dedicated these words to. (The dedication is in my sidebar, for anyone who wants to read it.)

Because Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is coming up, I hope that everyone remembers his legacy, what he did for all of us, and that his work is far from done.

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
- Coretta Scott King, civil rights leader and widow of Martin Luther King, Jr. at the 25th anniversary luncheon of Lambda Defense and Education Fund, March 31, 1998

"Prayers for Bobby" will air on Lifetime on January 24th

2009-01-08T11:00:00.000-08:00

As a mom, one thing I know with all my heart is that my love for my children is unconditional, and I think that most parents are driven by their desire to do what they think is best for their children. Sometimes parents don't realize that something they are doing is causing them undue emotional harm until it's too late. My friend Katie posted this preview of Prayers for Bobby, a Lifetime movie that will be aired on January 24th about Mary Griffith, a conservative Christian mother who loses her gay son to suicide, and I had to pass it along. It's based on the book Prayers for Bobby: A Mother's Coming to Terms with the Suicide of Her Gay Son,which actually contains excerpts from a 400-page diary he kept. I haven't seen a Sigourney Weaver movie in a while, but I've always been a fan, and this trailer made me cry. /sob

Watch the latest videos on YouTube.com

Too bad this movie didn't come out before the election. I hope that there are people out there who will watch this and reconsider their beliefs about sexual orientation. There is another movie that I recently moved to the top of my Netflix queue, For The Bible Tells Me So,which has gotten several honors, including a nomination for the Grand Jury prize at the Sundance Film Festival. It includes the story of Mary Lou Wallner, another mom who lost her lesbian daughter to suicide. Ironically, when I was searching for a trailer for For the Bible Tells Me So, I found this incredible piece of ignorance on YouTube, with comments from more ignorant, hateful people. What does Jesus Christ teach us about compassion? Apparently, some Christians don't seem to take the teachings of Jesus Christ all that seriously.

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
- Mahatma Gandhi

UPDATE 1/10/2009: Thanks, Katie, for passing this link on. Teens who come out to their parents and whose parents respond in any number of negative ways, are 8 times more like to try to commit suicide. They are also 6 times as vulnerable to severe depression and 3 times at risk of drug use. So please... be sure to share this information with everyone you know. Through education, compassion, and understanding, we can help save lives.

UPDATE 2/5/2009: If you missed it, you can now watch Prayers for Bobby online!

Amazon.com Widgets

The million dollar question: Why was Prop 8 on the ballot in the first place?

2009-01-07T14:00:00.000-08:00

This question was posed to me by a very good friend from college, whom I still have a special place in my innerds, even though he voted Yes on Prop 8. Part of the issue has to do with the inherent dysfunction of the California Initiative Process, which deserves its own blog post, and I'll be commenting on that real soon. /grin

Here was my response to his question several weeks ago concerning why we would even be allowed to vote on it, if people were going to fight the outcome of the vote:

Well, that's the million dollar question. This is what all the lawsuits are about. The Supreme Court rejected the petition to remove Prop 8 from the ballot and didn't say why. I was reading some legal analyst comments about how they think it is because the courts are not supposed to rule on whether an amendment should have been a revision until it passes and there is legal evidence that supports this (because they can't evaluate the impact of it until it passes).

The reason why Prop 8 is different from voting for the president is because it affects the rights of a group of people. Again, we're not supposed to be voting on each other's rights. It undermines the principles of our government as a constitutional republic, which affects all of us. There are 3 lawsuits right now, and one is from the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Equal Justice Society, California NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Those organizations represent the rights of minorities like us, and their concern is that the precedent that Prop 8 set undermines the government's ability to protect the rights of all minorities. The other lawsuits were from the ACLU, who are representing couples who were planning on getting married and who cannot marry now. Another is from the Counties of Los Angeles, Santa Clara, San Francisco, and Alameda, which are arguing that the measure is a major revision and not an amendment. There is also a petition from the California Council of Churches, which represents both Protestant and Orthodox Christian groups in California, and several other religious organizations that have the same concern about Prop 8 undermining the government's ability to protect the rights of religious minorities.

Anyway, I think a lot of people agree that measures like this should be voted on by our elected representatives first before making it onto the ballot, and the Prop 8 folks knew that they could never get this past the State Legislature because they had already voted on and passed same-sex marriage bills twice. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Actually, for those of you who don't know, according to a study by the Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, this was a multi-million dollar question, $64 million in state and local government revenues and an economic boost of $684 million in wedding spending and tourism over 3 years, to be exact.

How Prop 8 spits in the face of Thomas Jefferson and hurts "the People"

2008-12-30T04:30:00.000-08:00

For those of you who are wondering why there are so many lawsuits against Prop 8, or if you are just finding out about them now, you may be wondering, "How is this possible? Like didn't we all vote on this already and the majority already decided?" Well, a lot of us who've studied American Government in earnest saw this coming. I think it's really important for every American to understand the basic workings of our government. Otherwise, how can you possibly appreciate what an amazing place this is to live (most of the time)? /cheer

I posted this in the No on Prop 8 Facebook group discussions before the election, and one of my fellow Facebookers asked if she could share this with her friends. I thought I would share it here for anyone who still doesn't understand how Prop 8 undermines the fundamental principles of our government and affects us all as Americans:

In "In Re Marriage Cases," which is the CA Supreme Court decision that declared Prop 22 unconstitutional, the justices, in 160 pages of legal precedence, stated that marriage is a "civil right." I'm not going to go into what a "civil right" is because hopefully, we learned this in school. The important thing we should have learned is that everyone is entitled to civil rights under the Equal Protection Clause. Lots of "Yes on 8" people keep saying they were "activist judges." But the truth is that CA has a right leaning supreme court (6 of 7 were appointed by Republican governors). They come from Catholic and Protestant backgrounds. However, their job is one of the most important in our government and that is to interpret the constitution. They don't add or change laws. And they have to do this without bias, which means that justices have the hardest job because they must put aside their personal and religious views.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right of marriage to everyone, based on its definition in the constitution, which declares it as "a contract," not a "religious rite" or "tradition." They also based it on countless cases that declared that marriage is a civil right. This right is essential to "the pursuit of happiness" etc. etc. Of course, you can't say it's a right in other cases, and not in this one because that would violate constitutional law. So... constitutional law now upholds that the civil contract of marriage is available to everyone. This is where Prop 8 comes along. Prop 8 is an AMENDMENT to the constitution that will change the the CIVIL definition of marriage, which changes it for ALL of US. The current definition allows you to uphold your beliefs about marriage in your church, and my beliefs in mine. Prop 8 doesn't just "reinforce" the definition of traditional marriage by making it legal. Constitutional amendment should never be taken lightly. This one literally takes the civil right of marriage away from one group of people, many of whom are already married. LITERALLY.

Our Founding Fathers drafted a constitution that would protect civil rights for all, and they even knew that their own ideas about what is just might be wrong, which is why we have checks and balances. It is not a direct democracy, where the majority can oppress a minority. This is where (hopefully) you can believe that we all are trying to uphold everything that this country was built on. You are free to practice whatever religion you want, and so is everyone else. If we all do not fight for this, no matter if we feel gays are sinful or not, WE ALL LOSE. I don't think in all of the history of our government have we ever upheld a constitutional right, and then rescinded it. EVER. The precedent this sets goes against *everything* our country stands for.

Prop 8 rescinded the fundamental right to marry the person of one's choice. A fundamental right is a constitutional right that is either explicit or implied, and the right to marry is a fundamental right along with other familiar rights, like the right to procreate, the right to vote, and the right to raise children free of governmental interference. I've read a lot of bloggers arguing about how marriage is a religious sacrament. Well, yes, it may be a religious sacrament in your religion, and that's great, but a civil marriage that provides the legal status and protections of marriage is available to everyone, including non-religious people in the U.S. The state allows clergy to solemnize marriages more as a courtesy. In many other countries, marriages can only be solemnized by the state, and the religious ceremony (or non-religious celebration) is completely separate. I think that because of how our country handles marriages, many people feel that the word "marriage" belongs to their religion and is a religious rite and a sacrament. But a civil marriage has no relationship to religion or tradition at all and should be impartial to any one group's beliefs about religion or tradition.

The lawsuits that have been submitted against Prop 8 currently include ones from: the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and National Center for Lesbian Rights, who are representing couples who can no longer marry; the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, California State Conference of the NAACP, Equal Justice Society, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which contend that a higher standard than a simple majority must be required to strip a minority of fundamental rights; the Counties of Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Alameda, San Mateo, Marin, San Francisco, and many cities, which assert that Prop 8 is a major revision and therefore invalid because it did not go through the proper procedures required of a revision; and the California Council of Churches and several faith organizations, which describe Prop 8 as an infringement upon the religious liberty of churches that recognize same-sex marriage and sets a legal precedent that undermines our government's ability to protect religious minorities. All of these argue that Prop 8 undermines the independent judiciary's ability to protect minorities by allowing the electorate to strip away rights from a group that were upheld by the courts. Some people are wondering, "Wait, didn't some ethnic groups and many religious groups represented by these legal groups vote for Prop 8 with overwhelming majorities?" These lawsuits aren't about protecting personal beliefs registered through a majority vote (the right to vote is what is protected, not the outcome!). These groups protect the rights of specific minority groups, and as many legal experts have pointed out, Prop 8 sets a legal precedent that allows for any group's rights to be stripped through misuse of California's Initiative Process. In other words, Prop 8 makes it difficult for these legal groups to protect the rights of the groups they champion, should their rights be threatened by similar measures in the future. I've seen some conspiracy theories about bribes given to the NAACP and other nonsense to justify many of their members' opposition to Prop 8, even though a majority of the Black community supposedly voted for Prop 8. Unbeknownst to these ignorant bloggers, the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement are the ones who championed marriage equality, long before Prop 8 came around.

A final word about constitutions... many people keep saying, "Well, now that Prop 8 is in the constitution, doesn't the Supreme Court have to uphold the constitution? Didn't the majority already decide? Haven't THE PEOPLE spoken?" Well, this is where a solid understanding of our government is really important. Constitutions are "by the People, for the People". When our Founding Fathers wrote "for the People" they meant "for ALL the People," not "for the majority." We are purposely NOT a "majority rules" nation. In fact, the Constitution of the United States was almost not ratified because many of the Founding Fathers protested its lack of guarantee of rights to protect minorites from "majority rule" tyranny. Hence, the Bill of Rights was born. As it stands, the California Constitution is not "for the People." It is "for the majority" (and a slim majority at that). As I've mentioned in other posts and as others have noted, we are not some ancient democracy that eventually imploded on itself when 49% of the people got sick and tired of 51% of the people voting their rights away. For the sake of our great state, let's hope Prop 8 gets overturned soon.

"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

Sliding down the "slippery slope" to polygamy

2008-12-23T17:30:00.000-08:00

As a descendent of polygamists, I find it incredibly offensive when people akin same-sex marriage to polygamy. I think the "slippery slope" argument is ridiculous. When people ask about what I think about polygamy, I try to answer objectively and say that if it is possible to eliminate the "oppression of women and children" part of it, and we can show that it doesn't hurt anybody at all, then I'm all for it. I understand that this is a touchy subject, especially since our country used it as an excuse to discriminate against the Mormons, who were forced to give up polygamy to get their own state. Recently, we had a guy in our Facebook discussion group who said that if we could totally prove that same-sex marriage would not lead to polygamy, he would be all for it, but he couldn't see how it would be possible to keep this from leading to legalizing polygamy. /sigh So I had this to say:

[Same-sex marriage opponent], I think I understand your concern. If we purely argue the marriage is a fundamental right, you feel that this might mean that we have to extend rights for everyone eventually, and for example, allow polygamous marriages. This is not true however, and I think I can convince you. At least I'm up for the challenge.

Rights are not absolute. Just like the different powers of government (the voters, the president, Congress, etc.) are not absolute, neither is a right. Let's take the freedom of speech for example. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. However, we have plenty of limits on freedom of speech in the interest of the greater good. Same thing on the right to bear arms. I dont think it is legal for us to have bazookas in our homes. (At least I hope not.) Rights are expanded or limited in the interest of protecting the rights and welfare of others.

The right to marry is a fundamental right, but this doesn't mean that it can't be limited. It is limited, and in May the Supreme Court had expanded it to include same-sex couples. Just like any other right, the social welfare aspect of it was considered. In this case, there is a lot of evidence that supports legalizing same-sex marriage: the thousands of families that are already headed by same-sex couples, the major mental health and medical associations all support legalizing same-sex marriage based on empirical evidence from over 25 years of research, the studies that indicate that children of married couples actually fare better that unmarried couples, etc. etc. From a public policy standpoint, it makes sense to support same-sex marriage.

The difference with polygamy is that there is no positive research that supports it. In order for us to ever get to the point of even considering legalizing polygamy, there is going to have to be thousands of families that can be studied over many years, and then those studies are going to have to have positive evidence that support it, which I doubt will ever happen. The reason is that it is the "permanent monogamy" aspect of marriage that is stabilizing for families. When people say "I choose you and forsake all others" in marriage, they are committing to not sleeping around and to staying with one person and building a life with that person. Polygamy would undermine this aspect of marriage as we know it. Same-sex marriage actually strengthens it because we are encouraging everyone to be in stable, permanent, monogamous relationships that are recognized and protected by our government with a single binding civil contract (not the thousands of dollars worth of legal documents that are required to give same-sex couples the same protections as married couples).

Also, a personal anecdote for you. My ancestors are polygamists. They were not Mormon though so I can't speak for them, but I've heard stories from family members about the way it was. Whenever a second wife (or concubine) was added to the family, it was very destabilizing to the family. Sometimes it was devastating, especially if the first wife hoped she would be the only wife. The children are sometimes jealous of children of the other wives. The father has to split his time between families. Again, if anyone can prove that polygamy isn't going to hurt anyone and will help the general welfare of society, then go ahead and try, but I will bet on my ancestors' graves that this won't happen.

Anyway, [fellow marriage equality proponent] quoted this in a previous post [from a New York Times article written in 2004], which sums it up nicely:

"After identifying the social function that marriage serves, it is easy to allay the fears of those worried about a slippery slope to an 'anything goes' definition of marriage. Marriages between brother and sister? Incestuous marriages strike at the core of the bonds of trust and the functions of care that a family requires. Polygamy? One husband and numerous wives invites increased jealousy, deception and subjugation, and mocks the importance of 'forsaking all others,' essential components of the stabilizing function of marriage."

I also had the following to say to another person who said that there was no way that same-sex marriage would be legalized in our lifetime and that all us marriage equality proponents would "never be happy until we become a genderless society with no values and no limits":

No, a lot has happened in our lifetime. I'm really happy with the way things are going. And marriage equality is going to happen too, and it's already happening, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

There is one thing about this that makes me really happy. I'm really happy that we've left the traditional definition of marriage behind... the one that made my grandmother the second wife, where she married out of obligation and left her true love behind. The one that had to do with oppression of women, status, property, and strictly procreation. The one where love and commitment were not a prereq or even goals. That is what traditional marriage is. One thing I know for sure is that my grandmother wanted better for her daughters and grand-daughters. Our society has encouraged the evolution of the modern definition of marriage into one of love, commitment, stability, a declaration of permanent monogamy, finding a soulmate, creating and nuturing a family out of LOVE, not obligation, not a need to create heirs for men, not control. Not only that, we encourage people to make this declaration in front of family and friends and society in general, which makes us work all the harder to keeping our families intact. And our government will acknowledge this family unit with a legal status of marriage (with the protections and responsibilities that come with it). This modern meaning of marriage in itself is inherently a stabilizing force in our society. In light of this, why would you not want to encourage all people to marry? To find a partner in life to which they can emotionally and physically commit their hearts and minds to, settle down, raise children? Why do we not want to give their families the best possible environment possible (with the status and protections of a civil marriage)?

I know that my grandmother would have voted no on Prop 8. In fact, everyone in my family did, and since we are all old-fashioned traditional folk with family values, who are married with children, I find your comments about how we'll "never be happy until we become a genderless society with no values and no limits" quite short-sighted. Perhaps our goals concerning society have a lot more in common than you think.

Civil union and domestic partnership vs. marriage: "Separate but equal" is inherently unequal

2008-12-22T18:36:00.000-08:00

A few years ago, I worked in the IT department on an HR application for managing benefits. Long before I ever thought about gay rights or marriage equality, I did notice something that bothered me about the whole domestic partnership thing. I could tell that most of those people were gay. So basically, in order to get benefits for you and your partner and their children, you basically have to out yourself to your company. I remember thinking how unfair that was... do the rest of us have to declare something about ourselves at work that some people might find questionable or worthy of discrimination, like our religion or ethnicity? No, absolutely not. And it would be unethical to require it, just as it is unethical that domestic partnership and civil unions even exist as a "separate but equal" substitute to marriage.

For those people who were quoting the California Family Code 297.5 in order to prove that domestic partnerships have all the same rights as marriage, who are neither lawyers nor lawmakers... to pretend that you know anything about the law and its complexities when it comes to this issue, means that you are "bearing false witness." Even if the Defense of Marriage Act were repealed today, this does not mean that domestic partnerships or civil unions will have all the same rights and protections as marriage, even if they do in California. In fact, because civil unions and domestic partnerships are separate legal recognitions altogether, they also have their own definitions and sets of rules, depending on which state you are in, and other countries may not recognize them at all. This means that they are not portable... considering that people may need to travel outside of the state for work or leisure, it doesn't seem all that practical or fair. Furthermore, my husband and I went to the County and paid $73 for a marriage license and $13 for a registered copy of our marriage certificate. In order to ensure that domestic partners have the legal protections of marriage, they would need to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to draw up those legal documents, and those legal documents can still be challenged in court by disgruntled family members. Because of this, same-sex partners are denied rights and benefits all the time, even as people are arguing that they are "equal".

According to Joanna Grossman, a professor of law at Hofstra University, the only legitimate argument to deny a partner in a civil union "rights" that should be theirs is an argument that also confirms that a civil union is NOT a marriage. Because of laws that explicitly refer to marriage and policies by insurance companies and other entities that explicitly refer to marriage, like the Workers' Compensation Law, civil unions and domestic partnership remain unequal. Every single law, insurance policy, legal statute, etc. would have to need to be rewritten to say "marriage or civil union or domestic partnership" for civil unions and domestic partnerships to be "equal." This isn't going to happen because it would be a huge waste of time and tax payer dollars, and as far as insurance policies go, it's just one more sneaky way not to have to pay out to the families of the insured. It makes far more sense and takes far less tax dollars to ensure equality by legalizing same-sex marriage.

According to research recently published by the Williams Institute, same-sex couples prefer marriage over other legal recognition:

The data from these states also demonstrate that same-sex couples prefer marriage over civil unions or domestic partnerships. While 37% of same-sex couples married during the first year that marriage was made available to them in Massachusetts, only 12% of same-sex couples have entered civil unions and 10% have entered domestic partnerships during the first year in which states have offered these forms of recognition.

I don't blame those people who would rather wait to be married. I wouldn't want to register myself or my loved one in the "gay people" directory at my government office either, after witnessing how serious the prejudice against gay people still is after all these years. Having seen all the homophobes come out during the Prop 8 campaign, I'd be even less inclined now.

/cringe

If I need to spend thousand of dollars to a lawyer anyway to have legal documents drawn up so that my domestic partner and I might even be close to having the same legal protections that an $86 marriage certificate gives to straight couples (with the help of my tax dollars no less), why bother??? Besides, many of us grew up dreaming about finding "the one" and asking, or being asked, the most important question in one's life (and ultimate declaration of love), "Will you marry me?" NOT "Will you register a domestic partnership with me?" I wouldn't want anything less for my fellow human beings.

First cousin marriages and Prop 8

2008-12-21T00:00:00.000-08:00

Before the election, I remember reading about a legal scholar who was up in arms about Prop 8 and gave the "first cousin marriage" issue as one of concern in regard to Prop 8. No, it's not about how Prop 8 could lead to incest between first cousins being legalized. /scowl This is about how first cousin marriages are already legal in California, and how Prop 8 could lead to a measure with similar verbiage like "Only a marriage between and man and a woman, who are unrelated and do not share a grandparent, is valid or recognized" that could affect those marriages. I recently came across this blog post that articulates quite eloquently the ugly legal precedent that Prop 8 could set if allowed to stand. With recent developments in the Prop 8 fight concerning how the new constitutional amendment should be interpreted "literally", this issue is all the more relevant.

It seems that a lot of people don't know this, but in about half the states in the U.S., first cousin marriages are restricted. California is one of the states that allows first cousin marriages. We are apparently the only country in the western world that has any restrictions on first cousin marriages. It is legal in all of Europe, Canada, and Mexico. In some cultures outside of western culture, cousin marriages are preferable. "Kissing cousins" are not all that uncommon throughout history. Queen Victoria and Darwin married their first cousins. Recent studies have shown that the increased chance of genetic defects in the children of cousins much less significant than previously thought. Many editorials about first cousin marriage are pretty consistent and supportive, as they were for Prop 8. However, I see a lot of first cousin marriage bashing in the discussion boards whenever someone brings up the "slippery slope" argument to "incest" when it comes to cousins marrying. A lot of this is from the Yes on Prop 8 folks saying "gay marriage will lead to cousins marrying!" with No on Prop 8 folks replying "No, this won't lead to cousins marrying!" NEWS FLASH: First cousins are already allowed to marry in California, and being a melting pot of diversity, there are thousands of married first cousins living here. If an interest group were to get an initiative on the ballot in California that redefined marriage to be of unrelated persons who do not share a grandparent, I would venture to guess that it would pass for sure, and more out of ignorance than malice (as it has in other states). Not surprisingly, the first cousin marriage "ick" factor has Christian roots, since Leviticus says that persons who are closely related cannot marry.

If the proponents for banning first cousin marriage tried to apply the same logic that they are using for Prop 8 and succeeded, then thousands of first cousin marriages would no longer be recognized. The children of those marriages are affected, as well as every legal document that depends on those marriages. The far-reaching legal ramifications for those families are scary to think about. By the same logic that the Prop 8 proponents are defending, those marriages can no longer be recognized in California, but they would still be valid in states that recognize first cousin marriage. Again, this just wreaks of "we don't want you here" to me.

As an aside, this is a good lesson to think about as a No on Prop 8 supporter (and Yes on Prop 8 supporter if you are reading this). Before knowing all the things we know now about first cousin marriage, would you have voted to ban marriage between cousins? I am assuming that many people will say yes. If yes, would you still vote yes, knowing that first cousin marriages are legal in many other countries, that thousands of same-grandparent couples exist in California, that experts feel that banning cousins from marrying is not necessary, and that this will have serious legal consequences on their lives? Even if this is not something that you would tolerate personally, would you still vote to ban it for other families, invalidating their marriages and interfering with their personal lives? If the answer is no to both of these questions, then I'm assuming that you voted no on Prop 8. /grin

Same-sex marriages before Nov 4 no longer valid in CA

2008-12-20T00:33:00.000-08:00

The Yes on Prop 8 folks filed a legal brief that says that the marriages of couples who got married before Nov 4 can no longer be recognized in California, but they can still be recognized in other states that recognize same-sex marriages. According to this logic, I'm assuming this means that no same-sex marriage from ANY other state/country can be recognized within our borders either. WOW.

"Proposition 8 supporters acknowledge those marriages were legal before Election Day, and say they are not trying to "nullify" them now. They argue that the plain language of Proposition 8 — "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." — means those marriages can no longer be recognized in California, although they would still be valid in other states where same-sex marriage is legal or recognized.

"Proposition 8 is in effect, and only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized," said Andrew Pugno, general counsel for the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund. "It doesn't say only a man and woman can get married. It says that only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized. It means what it says."

/amaze

This just proves to me that those groups responsible for Prop 8 are trying to hurt people, and not just gay couples in California but gay couples all over the world. It wasn't only about taking rights away, but it's like they are saying to gay people, "We don't want you here!"

If I knew that there was a state or country that wouldn't recognize the marriage between my husband and me, for example, if in Alabama, there was a law that said that a marriage between people of different races would not be recognized within its borders... I would never go to that state, EVER. I wouldn't set foot into any state or country with such a law, knowing that something could happen to one of us and we could possibly be separated, or I couldn't be at my husband's bed-side when he needed me most. I'm sure that those Prop 8 people know this, and they just don't want you LGBT people here folks!!

Now we know what the intentions of the Prop 8 proponents were. This is about whether same-sex marriages are valid or recognized within the borders of California, literally. Their argument basically says that no same-sex marriages are good here in California, including those of any state or country, which affects every legal document and statute that depends on the validity of a couple's marriage. This affects every married same-sex couple that is physically here in California, including tourists and immigrants. This would also prevent California from recognizing the same-sex marriages of other jurisdictions, like New York does. According to Andrew Pugno, the language is clear. "It means what it says." He even says that it wasn't about the right to marry. It is about whether a marriage is legally recognized or not. If we interpret it as literally as he does, then Prop 8 definitely has serious legal ramifications.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Jerry Brown figures out that we have enough evidence to prove that Prop 8 was a major revision and not an amendment to the constitution. It's about time.

Message to a Prop 8 supporter

2008-12-18T16:57:00.000-08:00

In a previous post, I mentioned that a fellow Facebooker messaged me about one of the posts I wrote in response to a Prop 8 supporter. The Prop 8 supporter's comments were typical: that homosexuality is a choice, that the definition of marriage has been the same for thousands of years, that marriage is only for procreation and that this is what Loving v. Virginia is about (?!), that same-sex marriage will threaten our survival and undermine our ability to carry on the "race of humans", and that we all have the same civil right, namely, we all have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. (That last one always gets me... just like we all had the same civil right to marry 60 years ago: we all had the right to marry someone of our own race.)

/emote rolls her eyes

Anyway, she said that it was one of the best responses she'd ever read and encouraged me to send it to newspapers. :) I thought I'd share my message for anyone who is thinking of writing their own letters:

[Prop 8 Supporter],

Please read this: http://www.gfcbaltimore.org/GFC_VT_Mom.htm

Herein lies the problem. If you think that sexual orientation is something you can change, then that makes it difficult to argue that people should not be discriminated against for things they cannot change. I don't think you can change your sexual orientation and there is plenty of evidence that "therapy" doesn't work. You can decide to be celibate or marry someone of the opposite sex in order to fit in, but that doesn't change your sexual orientation. Not only that, you are depriving another human being the opportunity to marry with someone with whom they even have a fighting chance of having a fulfilling partnership with, which I don't think is fair. (I'm sure that is another discussion that we can have... how many people have been hurt by sham marriages with people trying to rid themselves of "homosexuality").

The right to marry the person of one's choice is still a choice. But it is not a choice like what to eat for lunch. It is the same type of choice that religion is. It is a spiritual choice. Your heart and mind chooses, and no force of will can change it (or at least it is very hard to change). If someone asked me if I could stop believing in God or whatever higher power I believe in, I would say no way. If someone asked a Protestant if they could be Catholic instead, they are probably going to say no, even if being Protestant was illegal. If someone asked me if I could choose someone other than my husband to be my life partner, my soulmate, I would say no way. If there was a law on the books that said I could not marry him, I would still be with him, even if it meant that I could not have the same recognition, protections, etc. that other couples do. Spirituality and sexual orientation are so coupled, that I don't see how the right to marry is not protected the same way that the freedom of religion is. If I am not sexually attracted to someone, I can't imagine how I can fall in love with them or have any kind of spiritual connection that comes with being in love with someone.

Also, the definition of marriage never meant to me (and many others) what it means to you. It always meant to me that I would be able to marry the person my heart and mind decided would be my life partner, and I hope that everyone has that right and that the families they form have the same legal status and protections the rest of us do. There should be no difference under the law. No religion has to recognize the unions they don't want to, and they don't now anyway, so why does it matter if 2% of the population can now marry each other in a civil contract? It's not going to change anything for the 98% of us, or cause us all to become gay. There will be no shortage of children to carry on the "race of humans". It's not going to threaten our survival. If you are arguing that it will, then that's ridiculous. And in fact, it's going to be much better for all of us, and those reasons have already been documented. Also, Mildred Loving (from Loving v. Virginia) made it clear that she wasn't fighting for the right of black people to marry white people. She wasn't a part of an immutable group of black people who could only fall in love with white people. People told her that she had the right to marry another black person, just not a white person. No, she and her husband were fighting for the right to marry the person their hearts and minds had already chosen. And this was her statement last year (which eloquently states the spirit of their court case and speaks of her stance on same-sex marriage):

"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone, they have a right to marry.

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

"I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about."

Celebrating diversity

2008-12-17T14:46:00.000-08:00

In the last several weeks following the election, there was a lot of shaking heads, disappointment, heartache, anger, and retrospection on the Prop 8 discussion boards. A lot of my fellow Facebookers have been discussing the kinds of forces that drive such a proposition, and the one word that keep popping up is "religion". We all know that religious groups were behind Prop 8, like the Mormon Church, and some people are angry that religion is used to justify homophobia and opposition to same-sex marriage, as well as all sorts of nasty acts against humanity throughout history. I know that a lot of people, when asked why they are so against same-sex marriage, start quoting the Bible and how it says that homosexuality is a sin. Frustrating, I KNOW. However, I'd like to point out the word "used". People use religion. It is not the cause. It is the excuse, and more so, the weapon.

Many people who supported segregation and the ban on interracial marriage supported the separating of races for religious reasons. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister. Does anyone think he would have said that religion was to blame? I don't think so. Religion is not to blame. People are to blame. Just like in a murder, the person is to blame, not the weapon. People can use whatever weapon they want to justify their personal beliefs. In this case, people used their churches, and the social connections and money-making power of those connections to help pass Prop 8. And churches, with their social connections and ability to raise money and rally people, created a political machine to do work to pass Prop 8. I guess this is why its called "organized religion." Unfortunately, the No on Prop 8 campaigners could have better utilized their own social connections before the election.

Besides, I just had a IM chat on Facebook with a guy who isn't religious but had a whole lot to say about "fags" and how they should "grow up and learn to eat fish." Ew ew ew. (And I'm sure this guy has no problems at all with lesbians. Jerk.)

He also said that we are all animals, and animals are supposed to reproduce, and that's all. Here's the icing on the cake: he said that I should abandon my "project" and do something more worthy, like work on legalizing porn. (And porn is already legal, stupid.)

/sigh
/emote shakes her head

The greatest champions of civil rights, equality, and social justice of our time were spirtual leaders who celebrated diversity. Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and others... they neither blamed religion, nor used their religion to snub their oppressors. Gandhi once told a Hindu man after he confessed to killing a Muslim child to avenge his own child being killed, that in order to atone for his sin, he needed to find an orphan whose parents had been killed by the fighting... and raise that child as a Muslim. Diversity indeed. I think we can take a few lessons from them. Also, consider this: Spain, which is largely a Catholic country (over 75%) legalized same-sex marriage in 2005, which over 66% of the population in approval. Ironically, at least one Spaniard, Pedro Almodovar said, "It's about time. This law will enrich society. It is pro-family."

We need to remind ourselves of what makes America so special: liberty, equality, and diversity. We should be celebrating diversity, which is really what makes our nation unique from all the others, the "beacon on the hill", however we want to describe ourselves. People are going to have different beliefs about things, and maybe it doesn't matter how they come to the same conclusion. We just hope to convince as many people as possible that same-sex marriage is a good thing. Attacking religion is harmful for the cause, not only because a lot of religious people voted against Prop 8, but in order to teach others to celebrate diversity, we ourselves have to show that we do too. So, I think the solution is not in being weary of religion, but in convincing people to celebrate diversity. Without diversity, we wouldn't be the country that we are today. I can't think of anything else that makes us different.

My very first blog post

2008-12-16T23:52:00.000-08:00

Well... I finally did it! I decided to start my own blog. w00t! as we say in the gaming world. This really has been a long time coming, and I just needed a little nudge from some friendly folks to take the plunge. I've been actively participating in the Facebook Group discussions on Prop 8 over the last several weeks, and literally, it's been a high school kid's lifetime since I'd written this much. I realized that that my pen was my sword in the 10th grade, when my teacher decided to read one of my essays to the class anonymously, and afterward told me it was one of the best essays he'd come across. In 11th grade, I submitted a critical essay to the Mt. SAC Writers' Day Festival and placed 1st in my division. I had the honor of shaking hands with Ray Bradbury, author of Fahrenheit 451, when he handed me my award. In college, one of my English TAs told me that I should be a writer, and I seriously considered it. But I discovered the computer, fell in love with technology, life happened, and I hadn't thought much about writing since then.

So several weeks ago, I received a unexpected message from a fellow Facebooker who saw one of my posts and asked if she could post it on her profile, so she could share it with friends. It really made my day... I didn't think I could write like that anymore. Of course, technical specs don't have the same moving power as essays on Prop 8, so maybe writing is just like riding a bicycle. Then a couple weeks ago, I got a message from another Facebooker who told me that a post I had written in response to a Prop 8 supporter was one of the best posts she had ever read and encouraged me to send it to every newspaper I could. Of course, I was ecstatic.

/cheer

I've had a handful of compliments on my writing since then. My husband, who has been incredibly supportive of me and has been reading some of my posts, said yesterday that I was no longer allowed "to let my words go to waste," so here I am. I hope that my words at least help open up a dialog, if not move people, to help make the world a better place. My first area of business now that Prop 8 has passed is marriage equality. I have quite a lot more to say on the subject, so stay tuned. :)