This is a tough, tough subject for me. When running for public service, how much attention should your private life be subjected to? My answer is bluntly, I don't know.
I think that if you are going to make a career out of being a public figure, you should have known better than to purchase sex off of the internet and I like to think that if you were going into public service, you would know to just say no to the pot instead of saying 20 years later, "I didn't inhale".
Such statements are cause for media scrutiny because, we all know, you did inhale.
It's not that I do not think your personal life should come into the "if" elected scenario, but I do think that the main-stream media pays a little too much attention on these personal issues and not enough time on the political ones.
Make sense?
Okay. Here's the rub: What do you get when you cross a Pawnbroker with an ex-hooker and add in an assault/battery charge with some accusations of steroid use?
If you answered the Democratic Nominee for Lt. Governor of the State of Illinois, you would be CORRECT.
Part of me feels awful for judging this man for his past hardships. If he insists his now ex-wife was a "massage therapist" when he met her and not a hooker, who the hell am I to judge him. Oh wait -- I am a tax paying citizen of this disgusting excuse for a State who deserves to have an elected official who isn't going to blow my money on hookers and drugs.
To the residents of the state of Illinois, I ask you: Haven't you suffered enough? What is wrong with you???
While you may find it amusing to continuously vote for the worst possible candidate as if it were some reality show saga, I am personally fed up with it and encourage you to take some responsibility for your elected officials. If this man wants to go off and take steroids and "lay with" a hooker, I am not one to stand in his way. HOWEVER, as the LT. GOV of this state, he needs to understand that it is impossible to have any trust or faith in a man of his character. And after all the pain, all the trauma and all the heartache of watching our elected officials hauled off in hand cuffs, I think the people of this state deserve a little peace of mind.
That's all I'm saying, really....
Friday, February 5, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Prop 8: A national epidemic
The Battle Against Proposition 8: The Prosecution Rests
The fight against gay marriage by the conservative right of this country has angered me beyond belief. What’s more, it frustrates me, as ignorance always does. It was within the last 100 years, women were finally given a voice in democracy which brought the entirety of the female gender from housewife and homemaker to breadwinner. In the time line that is our nation’s history, the evolution of the female identity will be clocked with an egg timer, not a calendar.
Even more recently was the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s which declared that ALL Americans, regardless of race, religion, gender or economic standing, could vote, ride a bus, and use a public washroom as well as a multitude of rights that were denied an entire race of tax-paying citizens all because they were different.
Fast forward a mere 50 years into the future and those same people who fought for freedom for themselves are now on the bandwagon to deny it to others. For those who have not read the United States Constitution, allow me to introduce you to my good friend, Mr. 14th Amendment. I have taken the liberty of BOLDING that which I find to be most relevant in this circumstance:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Interesting isn’t it? The United State Constitution says that no person can be denied property or immunities of citizens, and yet, that is exactly what is on trial here today. When you enter into a marriage, you enter into an estate. You are entitled to ownership of joint property and immunity from testifying in a court of law against your spouse. Why then, should these rights be denied because the conservative RIGHT thinks this might, possibly, one day, maybe in the distant future, potentially lead to polygamy. NOTE: No scientific research has been done to prove this; it’s all speculation. But then again, this is a group of folks who, for one reason or another are always immune to FACT CHECKING – Glenn Beck, anyone?
Marriage is not just about taking a last name and inheriting each other’s debt. Marriage is about the commitment one person makes to another person, regardless of sexual preference. Marriage is a promise, marriage is a partnership. And by denying recognition of a legal partnership in this country is flat out discriminatory. In the fine country that is the United States of America, you are not allowed to say, “You have a right to marry because you are heterosexual,” anymore than you are allowed to say “you have a right to vote because you’re white”. In this country, you are allowed to vote because you are American, and as an American, you should be entitled to enter a marital union and have that union recognized by your State.
California: I understand the voters of your fine state had their say, and you have done nothing but uphold the law of the people. But what you have to now determine is whether or not that law is unconstitutional. Read the 14th Amendment.
Then you can decide.
The fight against gay marriage by the conservative right of this country has angered me beyond belief. What’s more, it frustrates me, as ignorance always does. It was within the last 100 years, women were finally given a voice in democracy which brought the entirety of the female gender from housewife and homemaker to breadwinner. In the time line that is our nation’s history, the evolution of the female identity will be clocked with an egg timer, not a calendar.
Even more recently was the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s which declared that ALL Americans, regardless of race, religion, gender or economic standing, could vote, ride a bus, and use a public washroom as well as a multitude of rights that were denied an entire race of tax-paying citizens all because they were different.
Fast forward a mere 50 years into the future and those same people who fought for freedom for themselves are now on the bandwagon to deny it to others. For those who have not read the United States Constitution, allow me to introduce you to my good friend, Mr. 14th Amendment. I have taken the liberty of BOLDING that which I find to be most relevant in this circumstance:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Interesting isn’t it? The United State Constitution says that no person can be denied property or immunities of citizens, and yet, that is exactly what is on trial here today. When you enter into a marriage, you enter into an estate. You are entitled to ownership of joint property and immunity from testifying in a court of law against your spouse. Why then, should these rights be denied because the conservative RIGHT thinks this might, possibly, one day, maybe in the distant future, potentially lead to polygamy. NOTE: No scientific research has been done to prove this; it’s all speculation. But then again, this is a group of folks who, for one reason or another are always immune to FACT CHECKING – Glenn Beck, anyone?
Marriage is not just about taking a last name and inheriting each other’s debt. Marriage is about the commitment one person makes to another person, regardless of sexual preference. Marriage is a promise, marriage is a partnership. And by denying recognition of a legal partnership in this country is flat out discriminatory. In the fine country that is the United States of America, you are not allowed to say, “You have a right to marry because you are heterosexual,” anymore than you are allowed to say “you have a right to vote because you’re white”. In this country, you are allowed to vote because you are American, and as an American, you should be entitled to enter a marital union and have that union recognized by your State.
California: I understand the voters of your fine state had their say, and you have done nothing but uphold the law of the people. But what you have to now determine is whether or not that law is unconstitutional. Read the 14th Amendment.
Then you can decide.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
On the Eve of the State of the Union
Let us remind ourselves that this issue is far from over:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957
Please read and repost.
Newsweek
Print This
The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
Why same-sex marriage is an American value.
By Theodore B. Olson | NEWSWEEK
Published Jan 9, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Jan 18, 2010
Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.
My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the "traditional" definition of marriage and press for an "activist" interpretation of the Constitution to create another "new" constitutional right?
My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.
This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Sadly, our nation has taken a long time to live up to the promise of equality. In 1857, the Supreme Court held that an African-American could not be a citizen. During the ensuing Civil War, Abraham Lincoln eloquently reminded the nation of its found-ing principle: "our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
At the end of the Civil War, to make the elusive promise of equality a reality, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution added the command that "no State É shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person É the equal protection of the laws."
Subsequent laws and court decisions have made clear that equality under the law extends to persons of all races, religions, and places of origin. What better way to make this national aspiration complete than to apply the same protection to men and women who differ from others only on the basis of their sexual orientation? I cannot think of a single reason—and have not heard one since I undertook this venture—for continued discrimination against decent, hardworking members of our society on that basis.
Various federal and state laws have accorded certain rights and privileges to gay and lesbian couples, but these protections vary dramatically at the state level, and nearly universally deny true equality to gays and lesbians who wish to marry. The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional.
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law.
It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of our nation's multiple religions define marriage in precisely those terms. But while the Supreme Court has always previously considered marriage in that context, the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way confined to heterosexuals.
Marriage is a civil bond in this country as well as, in some (but hardly all) cases, a religious sacrament. It is a relationship recognized by governments as providing a privileged and respected status, entitled to the state's support and benefits. The California Supreme Court described marriage as a "union unreservedly approved and favored by the community." Where the state has accorded official sanction to a relationship and provided special benefits to those who enter into that relationship, our courts have insisted that withholding that status requires powerful justifications and may not be arbitrarily denied.
What, then, are the justifications for California's decision in Proposition 8 to withdraw access to the institution of marriage for some of its citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation? The reasons I have heard are not very persuasive.
The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors' prisons. Gays and lesbians have always been among us, forming a part of our society, and they have lived as couples in our neighborhoods and communities. For a long time, they have experienced discrimination and even persecution; but we, as a society, are starting to become more tolerant, accepting, and understanding. California and many other states have allowed gays and lesbians to form domestic partnerships (or civil unions) with most of the rights of married heterosexuals. Thus, gay and lesbian individuals are now permitted to live together in state-sanctioned relationships. It therefore seems anomalous to cite "tradition" as a justification for withholding the status of marriage and thus to continue to label those relationships as less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate.
The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state's interest in procreation—and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?
This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What's more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state's desire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.
Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any.
The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage to same-sex partners. On the other hand, there are many reasons why we should formally recognize these relationships and embrace the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and become full and equal members of our society.
No matter what you think of homosexuality, it is a fact that gays and lesbians are members of our families, clubs, and workplaces. They are our doctors, our teachers, our soldiers (whether we admit it or not), and our friends. They yearn for acceptance, stable relationships, and success in their lives, just like the rest of us.
Conservatives and liberals alike need to come together on principles that surely unite us. Certainly, we can agree on the value of strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and communities populated by persons with recognized and sanctioned bonds to one another. Confining some of our neighbors and friends who share these same values to an outlaw or second-class status undermines their sense of belonging and weakens their ties with the rest of us and what should be our common aspirations. Even those whose religious convictions preclude endorsement of what they may perceive as an unacceptable "lifestyle" should recognize that disapproval should not warrant stigmatization and unequal treatment.
When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.
I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
If we are born heterosexual, it is not unusual for us to perceive those who are born homosexual as aberrational and threatening. Many religions and much of our social culture have reinforced those impulses. Too often, that has led to prejudice, hostility, and discrimination. The antidote is understanding, and reason. We once tolerated laws throughout this nation that prohibited marriage between persons of different races. California's Supreme Court was the first to find that discrimination unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed 20 years later, in 1967, in a case called Loving v. Virginia. It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. And it was only 50 years ago that 17 states mandated segregated public education—until the Supreme Court unanimously struck down that practice in Brown v. Board of Education. Most Americans are proud of these decisions and the fact that the discriminatory state laws that spawned them have been discredited. I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society.
Reactions to our lawsuit have reinforced for me these essential truths. I have certainly heard anger, resentment, and hostility, and words like "betrayal" and other pointedly graphic criticism. But mostly I have been overwhelmed by expressions of gratitude and good will from persons in all walks of life, including, I might add, from many conservatives and libertarians whose names might surprise. I have been particularly moved by many personal renditions of how lonely and personally destructive it is to be treated as an outcast and how meaningful it will be to be respected by our laws and civil institutions as an American, entitled to equality and dignity. I have no doubt that we are on the right side of this battle, the right side of the law, and the right side of history.
Some have suggested that we have brought this case too soon, and that neither the country nor the courts are "ready" to tackle this issue and remove this stigma. We disagree. We represent real clients—two wonderful couples in California who have longtime relationships. Our lesbian clients are raising four fine children who could not ask for better parents. Our clients wish to be married. They believe that they have that constitutional right. They wish to be represented in court to seek vindication of that right by mounting a challenge under the United States Constitution to the validity of Proposition 8 under the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In fact, the California attorney general has conceded the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8, and the city of San Francisco has joined our case to defend the rights of gays and lesbians to be married. We do not tell persons who have a legitimate claim to wait until the time is "right" and the populace is "ready" to recognize their equality and equal dignity under the law.
Citizens who have been denied equality are invariably told to "wait their turn" and to "be patient." Yet veterans of past civil-rights battles found that it was the act of insisting on equal rights that ultimately sped acceptance of those rights. As to whether the courts are "ready" for this case, just a few years ago, in Romer v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court struck down a popularly adopted Colorado constitutional amendment that withdrew the rights of gays and lesbians in that state to the protection of anti-discrimination laws. And seven years ago, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down, as lacking any rational basis, Texas laws prohibiting private, intimate sexual practices between persons of the same sex, overruling a contrary decision just 20 years earlier.
These decisions have generated controversy, of course, but they are decisions of the nation's highest court on which our clients are entitled to rely. If all citizens have a constitutional right to marry, if state laws that withdraw legal protections of gays and lesbians as a class are unconstitutional, and if private, intimate sexual conduct between persons of the same sex is protected by the Constitution, there is very little left on which opponents of same-sex marriage can rely. As Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented in the Lawrence case, pointed out, "[W]hat [remaining] justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution'?" He is right, of course. One might agree or not with these decisions, but even Justice Scalia has acknowledged that they lead in only one direction.
California's Proposition 8 is particularly vulnerable to constitutional challenge, because that state has now enacted a crazy-quilt of marriage regulation that makes no sense to anyone. California recognizes marriage between men and women, including persons on death row, child abusers, and wife beaters. At the same time, California prohibits marriage by loving, caring, stable partners of the same sex, but tries to make up for it by giving them the alternative of "domestic partnerships" with virtually all of the rights of married persons except the official, state-approved status of marriage. Finally, California recognizes 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in the months between the state Supreme Court's ruling that upheld gay-marriage rights and the decision of California's citizens to withdraw those rights by enacting Proposition 8.
So there are now three classes of Californians: heterosexual couples who can get married, divorced, and remarried, if they wish; same-sex couples who cannot get married but can live together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex couples who are now married but who, if they divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot stand.
Americans who believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence, in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in the 14th Amendment, and in the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it.
Find this article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957
© 2010
http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957
Please read and repost.
Newsweek
Print This
The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
Why same-sex marriage is an American value.
By Theodore B. Olson | NEWSWEEK
Published Jan 9, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Jan 18, 2010
Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.
My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the "traditional" definition of marriage and press for an "activist" interpretation of the Constitution to create another "new" constitutional right?
My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.
This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Sadly, our nation has taken a long time to live up to the promise of equality. In 1857, the Supreme Court held that an African-American could not be a citizen. During the ensuing Civil War, Abraham Lincoln eloquently reminded the nation of its found-ing principle: "our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
At the end of the Civil War, to make the elusive promise of equality a reality, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution added the command that "no State É shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person É the equal protection of the laws."
Subsequent laws and court decisions have made clear that equality under the law extends to persons of all races, religions, and places of origin. What better way to make this national aspiration complete than to apply the same protection to men and women who differ from others only on the basis of their sexual orientation? I cannot think of a single reason—and have not heard one since I undertook this venture—for continued discrimination against decent, hardworking members of our society on that basis.
Various federal and state laws have accorded certain rights and privileges to gay and lesbian couples, but these protections vary dramatically at the state level, and nearly universally deny true equality to gays and lesbians who wish to marry. The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional.
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law.
It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of our nation's multiple religions define marriage in precisely those terms. But while the Supreme Court has always previously considered marriage in that context, the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way confined to heterosexuals.
Marriage is a civil bond in this country as well as, in some (but hardly all) cases, a religious sacrament. It is a relationship recognized by governments as providing a privileged and respected status, entitled to the state's support and benefits. The California Supreme Court described marriage as a "union unreservedly approved and favored by the community." Where the state has accorded official sanction to a relationship and provided special benefits to those who enter into that relationship, our courts have insisted that withholding that status requires powerful justifications and may not be arbitrarily denied.
What, then, are the justifications for California's decision in Proposition 8 to withdraw access to the institution of marriage for some of its citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation? The reasons I have heard are not very persuasive.
The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors' prisons. Gays and lesbians have always been among us, forming a part of our society, and they have lived as couples in our neighborhoods and communities. For a long time, they have experienced discrimination and even persecution; but we, as a society, are starting to become more tolerant, accepting, and understanding. California and many other states have allowed gays and lesbians to form domestic partnerships (or civil unions) with most of the rights of married heterosexuals. Thus, gay and lesbian individuals are now permitted to live together in state-sanctioned relationships. It therefore seems anomalous to cite "tradition" as a justification for withholding the status of marriage and thus to continue to label those relationships as less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate.
The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state's interest in procreation—and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?
This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What's more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state's desire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.
Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any.
The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage to same-sex partners. On the other hand, there are many reasons why we should formally recognize these relationships and embrace the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and become full and equal members of our society.
No matter what you think of homosexuality, it is a fact that gays and lesbians are members of our families, clubs, and workplaces. They are our doctors, our teachers, our soldiers (whether we admit it or not), and our friends. They yearn for acceptance, stable relationships, and success in their lives, just like the rest of us.
Conservatives and liberals alike need to come together on principles that surely unite us. Certainly, we can agree on the value of strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and communities populated by persons with recognized and sanctioned bonds to one another. Confining some of our neighbors and friends who share these same values to an outlaw or second-class status undermines their sense of belonging and weakens their ties with the rest of us and what should be our common aspirations. Even those whose religious convictions preclude endorsement of what they may perceive as an unacceptable "lifestyle" should recognize that disapproval should not warrant stigmatization and unequal treatment.
When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.
I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
If we are born heterosexual, it is not unusual for us to perceive those who are born homosexual as aberrational and threatening. Many religions and much of our social culture have reinforced those impulses. Too often, that has led to prejudice, hostility, and discrimination. The antidote is understanding, and reason. We once tolerated laws throughout this nation that prohibited marriage between persons of different races. California's Supreme Court was the first to find that discrimination unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed 20 years later, in 1967, in a case called Loving v. Virginia. It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. And it was only 50 years ago that 17 states mandated segregated public education—until the Supreme Court unanimously struck down that practice in Brown v. Board of Education. Most Americans are proud of these decisions and the fact that the discriminatory state laws that spawned them have been discredited. I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society.
Reactions to our lawsuit have reinforced for me these essential truths. I have certainly heard anger, resentment, and hostility, and words like "betrayal" and other pointedly graphic criticism. But mostly I have been overwhelmed by expressions of gratitude and good will from persons in all walks of life, including, I might add, from many conservatives and libertarians whose names might surprise. I have been particularly moved by many personal renditions of how lonely and personally destructive it is to be treated as an outcast and how meaningful it will be to be respected by our laws and civil institutions as an American, entitled to equality and dignity. I have no doubt that we are on the right side of this battle, the right side of the law, and the right side of history.
Some have suggested that we have brought this case too soon, and that neither the country nor the courts are "ready" to tackle this issue and remove this stigma. We disagree. We represent real clients—two wonderful couples in California who have longtime relationships. Our lesbian clients are raising four fine children who could not ask for better parents. Our clients wish to be married. They believe that they have that constitutional right. They wish to be represented in court to seek vindication of that right by mounting a challenge under the United States Constitution to the validity of Proposition 8 under the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In fact, the California attorney general has conceded the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8, and the city of San Francisco has joined our case to defend the rights of gays and lesbians to be married. We do not tell persons who have a legitimate claim to wait until the time is "right" and the populace is "ready" to recognize their equality and equal dignity under the law.
Citizens who have been denied equality are invariably told to "wait their turn" and to "be patient." Yet veterans of past civil-rights battles found that it was the act of insisting on equal rights that ultimately sped acceptance of those rights. As to whether the courts are "ready" for this case, just a few years ago, in Romer v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court struck down a popularly adopted Colorado constitutional amendment that withdrew the rights of gays and lesbians in that state to the protection of anti-discrimination laws. And seven years ago, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down, as lacking any rational basis, Texas laws prohibiting private, intimate sexual practices between persons of the same sex, overruling a contrary decision just 20 years earlier.
These decisions have generated controversy, of course, but they are decisions of the nation's highest court on which our clients are entitled to rely. If all citizens have a constitutional right to marry, if state laws that withdraw legal protections of gays and lesbians as a class are unconstitutional, and if private, intimate sexual conduct between persons of the same sex is protected by the Constitution, there is very little left on which opponents of same-sex marriage can rely. As Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented in the Lawrence case, pointed out, "[W]hat [remaining] justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution'?" He is right, of course. One might agree or not with these decisions, but even Justice Scalia has acknowledged that they lead in only one direction.
California's Proposition 8 is particularly vulnerable to constitutional challenge, because that state has now enacted a crazy-quilt of marriage regulation that makes no sense to anyone. California recognizes marriage between men and women, including persons on death row, child abusers, and wife beaters. At the same time, California prohibits marriage by loving, caring, stable partners of the same sex, but tries to make up for it by giving them the alternative of "domestic partnerships" with virtually all of the rights of married persons except the official, state-approved status of marriage. Finally, California recognizes 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in the months between the state Supreme Court's ruling that upheld gay-marriage rights and the decision of California's citizens to withdraw those rights by enacting Proposition 8.
So there are now three classes of Californians: heterosexual couples who can get married, divorced, and remarried, if they wish; same-sex couples who cannot get married but can live together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex couples who are now married but who, if they divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot stand.
Americans who believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence, in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in the 14th Amendment, and in the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it.
Find this article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957
© 2010
Thursday, December 17, 2009
A response to an additional response
Mr. Kane
Thank you for your concise clarification. I apologize I was unable to comprehend your original intention. I can certainly appreciate your point of view on this one -- which is why I have clung to my optimism with both hands. After all, 2012 is not that far off.
So instead of continuing to beat a dead horse, since we are for the most part in agreement with each other, let me give you a few things that you can, in fact, hang your hat on as 2009 comes to a close:
1. Your president, who may be idealistic and at times, overly optimistic, has succeeded in getting the Health Care debate front and center in 2009. As stated previously, no administration in American history has actually succeeded in getting Health Care to the floor of Congress. While an actual piece of legislation may be far off, the fact is it is finally within arms reach.
2. Your president, our president, has not been caught in any sort of scandal. In an age where financial and marital problems are on the rise, President Obama has been able to escape scandal in both his personal and political life. He had no involvement in the Blago scandal (former IL governor who now stands trial on federal corruption charges), as well as ties to Tony Rezko, the prestigious fund raiser from Chicago. For someone who is tied very closely to Chicago politics, he has managed to come out on top. Trust me, this is far easier said than done in this city.
3. He remains optimistic. While critics (tea party participants, FOX "news" corespondents and others) continue to dig for dirt on how to minimize his accomplishments, the President has frequently turned the other cheek and continued on his road to recovering America's soiled reputation. He has managed to carefully and tactically expose the GOP for what they truly are: a bunch of whiny, hypocritical idiots who wouldn't be able to find morality with two flashlights and a Garmin.
These 3 things are just a few of the many accomplishments this administration has delivered in 2009. I encourage you to look back on a year-to-year basis under previous administrations and try to find the same.
Well played, Mr. Kane! Well played.
-- Kaela
Thank you for your concise clarification. I apologize I was unable to comprehend your original intention. I can certainly appreciate your point of view on this one -- which is why I have clung to my optimism with both hands. After all, 2012 is not that far off.
So instead of continuing to beat a dead horse, since we are for the most part in agreement with each other, let me give you a few things that you can, in fact, hang your hat on as 2009 comes to a close:
1. Your president, who may be idealistic and at times, overly optimistic, has succeeded in getting the Health Care debate front and center in 2009. As stated previously, no administration in American history has actually succeeded in getting Health Care to the floor of Congress. While an actual piece of legislation may be far off, the fact is it is finally within arms reach.
2. Your president, our president, has not been caught in any sort of scandal. In an age where financial and marital problems are on the rise, President Obama has been able to escape scandal in both his personal and political life. He had no involvement in the Blago scandal (former IL governor who now stands trial on federal corruption charges), as well as ties to Tony Rezko, the prestigious fund raiser from Chicago. For someone who is tied very closely to Chicago politics, he has managed to come out on top. Trust me, this is far easier said than done in this city.
3. He remains optimistic. While critics (tea party participants, FOX "news" corespondents and others) continue to dig for dirt on how to minimize his accomplishments, the President has frequently turned the other cheek and continued on his road to recovering America's soiled reputation. He has managed to carefully and tactically expose the GOP for what they truly are: a bunch of whiny, hypocritical idiots who wouldn't be able to find morality with two flashlights and a Garmin.
These 3 things are just a few of the many accomplishments this administration has delivered in 2009. I encourage you to look back on a year-to-year basis under previous administrations and try to find the same.
Well played, Mr. Kane! Well played.
-- Kaela
RESPONSE: No Good Thing Ever Dies
(This blog post is a readers response to Adam's blogpost from 12/17/2009)
While I am certainly in no position to judge the video and lyrics posted to your post, I am in a position to completely disagree with you when you say, "...he hasn't been the inspiring leader we all thought he would be."
You're a smart man, so I urge you to take another look.
While the President has yet to successfully pass any sort of health care reform, you have to admit he is closer and more determined to do it than any other President in this nations' history. What other President ever got Congress to even consider health care reform, let alone getting it to the floor of both houses of Congress in under 8 months. Arguing health care reform isn't about right and wrong; it's about social responsibility and financial repercussions which would be felt by everyone from the doctor performing surgery to the nurse who's assisting all the way down to the janitor who sweeps the floors of the hospital. Health care involves so many people, so many industries, this is not something that can be reformed in 8 months, let alone less than one calendar year. Bush, Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. all promised Health Care reform, but none of them ever delivered the progress the current president has delivered. And in his first 11 months in office? Come now.
You are correct in saying it took nearly a year to get a decision on Afghanistan. And while that may seem like a long time to you, I personally find myself to be relieved to finally have a President who is willing to sit down with the right people, ask the tough questions and make the tough decisions that will inevitably lead to a successful end. Perhaps if the previous administration had paid more attention to the war in Afghanistan and less time fabricating a war in Iraq, well, suffice it to say, we would be living in a very, very different America. And while a year may be too long for some, I'm confident that in that year, he weighed the decision against the budget; the resources against what we could afford and was able to declare at the end of the deliberation that the age of "blank checks" is over. America will no longer take solo responsibility for the stability of this region.
The reason why, dear friend, we we all so confident that the man who change it all would be Obama is because we saw him for what he was: a man with very few answers, but the patience and temperament to figure out the answers. He is a man who brings ALL the players to the table, not just the ones who agree with him and at the end of all of it, he's able to weigh the pros and the cons and take the necessary steps to stabilize these situations that we inherited.
You are right when you say he is not living up to the expectation of the people -- however, I say this: if you expected him to fix a recession, not one but TWO wars and a health care crisis in 11 months, than your expectations were a little high.
Response? Bring it on, friend!
"I'll be in the Roosevelt Room, giving Louis oxygen."
Your friend,
KAELA
While I am certainly in no position to judge the video and lyrics posted to your post, I am in a position to completely disagree with you when you say, "...he hasn't been the inspiring leader we all thought he would be."
You're a smart man, so I urge you to take another look.
While the President has yet to successfully pass any sort of health care reform, you have to admit he is closer and more determined to do it than any other President in this nations' history. What other President ever got Congress to even consider health care reform, let alone getting it to the floor of both houses of Congress in under 8 months. Arguing health care reform isn't about right and wrong; it's about social responsibility and financial repercussions which would be felt by everyone from the doctor performing surgery to the nurse who's assisting all the way down to the janitor who sweeps the floors of the hospital. Health care involves so many people, so many industries, this is not something that can be reformed in 8 months, let alone less than one calendar year. Bush, Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. all promised Health Care reform, but none of them ever delivered the progress the current president has delivered. And in his first 11 months in office? Come now.
You are correct in saying it took nearly a year to get a decision on Afghanistan. And while that may seem like a long time to you, I personally find myself to be relieved to finally have a President who is willing to sit down with the right people, ask the tough questions and make the tough decisions that will inevitably lead to a successful end. Perhaps if the previous administration had paid more attention to the war in Afghanistan and less time fabricating a war in Iraq, well, suffice it to say, we would be living in a very, very different America. And while a year may be too long for some, I'm confident that in that year, he weighed the decision against the budget; the resources against what we could afford and was able to declare at the end of the deliberation that the age of "blank checks" is over. America will no longer take solo responsibility for the stability of this region.
The reason why, dear friend, we we all so confident that the man who change it all would be Obama is because we saw him for what he was: a man with very few answers, but the patience and temperament to figure out the answers. He is a man who brings ALL the players to the table, not just the ones who agree with him and at the end of all of it, he's able to weigh the pros and the cons and take the necessary steps to stabilize these situations that we inherited.
You are right when you say he is not living up to the expectation of the people -- however, I say this: if you expected him to fix a recession, not one but TWO wars and a health care crisis in 11 months, than your expectations were a little high.
Response? Bring it on, friend!
"I'll be in the Roosevelt Room, giving Louis oxygen."
Your friend,
KAELA
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
VIEWER’S RESPONSE: Barack Obama and the War in Afghanistan
Let me clear before I start this blog post: I do not support war; I do not support the taking of civilian lives and I do not support the brave men and women of this country being taken too early because of a cause that isn’t worth fighting. Let me clear: I do not support war.
In March, 2003, I sat on the floor of my room in my mother’s home and watched as my President addressed this nation. He looked me square in the eyes, lied to me, and then dropped a bomb on Baghdad that started a “conflict” that continues to this day. I opposed the war in Iraq; I opposed the taking of innocent lives and I opposed the capturing and execution of a leader who frankly, did absolutely nothing to us.
I oppose the Iraq War.
I oppose the blank check we signed over.
I oppose War without strategy.
To say I feel differently about Afghanistan would be untrue. I do not support war and I do not support the taking of innocent lives. But I do support my country – and when my country realized that it was the Taliban insurgency that caused the horrific events on 9/11 which have defined my generation, I took a deep breath and prayed that God would keep those being sent to fight safe. We were joined, at that time, by many countries from around the world, including full support from the UN Security Council. Do not misunderstand me – I don’t see this as a “justified” fight, but rather an affirmation, that what we did was the right decision at the time.
Had the United States not invaded Iraq in March, 2003, perhaps we’d all be singing a different song today. Perhaps the Taliban would not have reemerged after we pushed them back; perhaps Afghanistan would not only be self-sufficient economically, but politically and militarily as well. Perhaps the women of that nation would be free; and the men would not be able to keep them as slaves. Perhaps this worls would in fact, be different.
Unfortunately we will never know. What I do know is this: the war in Afghanistan is not an option, and it’s not a choice, but a decision that is being made in the best interest of America and the best interest in the security of the world.
I disagree with John McCain that the 18 month timeline will only force the Taliban underground for 18 months; I think it is time for the United States to declare that we will support the countries that need support, but we are done fighting your fights for you. The decade of fighting the fights because they need fighting needs to come to an end. We can no longer afford to support an open-ended war; we can no longer afford to spend American tax-payer money on a problem that has no viable solution.
I oppose the Iraq War; I oppose War overall. But I support my President. I trust my President. I have faith that my President has taken his time, had the tough discussions and made the best decision at this time in our nations’ history.
I do not support War; but I agree that in this time, it's time to end all the spending, all the death and all the fighting and bring our troops home.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the only way to do it.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Abortion clinic "bubble" law met by protest???! WHY?!
I am FUMING right now. So, I apologize in advance if this morning's blog is a little on the harsh side. I typically try to take a more objective stance on issues, especially when they pertain to Chicago (RIIIIghht). Today, however, I am shocked, appalled, amazing and quite frankly irrate at the cold, hard reality that people are just plain CRAZY!
To begin, I would like to say a heart-felt CONGRATULATIONS to the Chicago City Council for passing the "bubble" ordinance in Chicago. This ordinance states that it is now illegal to come within 50 feet of individuals standing outside a medical facility. This speaks volumes to not only the PRO-CHOICE community of Chicago, but also to those who wish to do harm to others supporting pro-choice legislation and organizations.
I am so happy to learn that the officials of the City of Chicago were able to vote correctly on this one.
What angers me is the protests going on, stating that this ordinance is a violation of a free speech right. Can you please explain to me how this is a violation? HOW is an ordinance requesting you stay 50 feet from someone a violation of your constitutional right to bitch? You can still bitch! You can still hold up your freakish signs and try to get people to listen to you.
But no longer are you allowed to follow some poor girl into an abortion clinic and scare her into agreeing with you -- that is called HARASSMENT and in this country, this type of behavior when it comes to the abortion issue has been tolorated long enough.
Americans of every variety have the right to feel safe; this includes when making tough decisions such as abortion. to the PRO-LIFE FREAKS who are protesting this ordinance, I say to you: when was the last time a Pro-Choice fanatic showed up outside an adoption agency with pictures of children who were being abused, and neglected in an adopted home? When was the last time a Pro-Choice supporter tried to convince some poor woman to abort her baby instead of putting it up for adoption right outside the agency? And when was the last time we walked up to a single pregnant woman, who was entering the adoption process, and asked if we could pray for her?
Is sex out of wedlock not also a sin in the eyes of your right-wing, conservative God? The morality pendulum HAS to swing both ways. I don't approach you and harass you into changing your mind? So why do you constantly feel the need to approach others outside Planned Parenthood, which is a good, safe, and well intentioned organization and scare people?
Seriously. Back the hell off! It's 50 feet! 50-freaking-feet.
GET OVER YOURSELF!
To begin, I would like to say a heart-felt CONGRATULATIONS to the Chicago City Council for passing the "bubble" ordinance in Chicago. This ordinance states that it is now illegal to come within 50 feet of individuals standing outside a medical facility. This speaks volumes to not only the PRO-CHOICE community of Chicago, but also to those who wish to do harm to others supporting pro-choice legislation and organizations.
I am so happy to learn that the officials of the City of Chicago were able to vote correctly on this one.
What angers me is the protests going on, stating that this ordinance is a violation of a free speech right. Can you please explain to me how this is a violation? HOW is an ordinance requesting you stay 50 feet from someone a violation of your constitutional right to bitch? You can still bitch! You can still hold up your freakish signs and try to get people to listen to you.
But no longer are you allowed to follow some poor girl into an abortion clinic and scare her into agreeing with you -- that is called HARASSMENT and in this country, this type of behavior when it comes to the abortion issue has been tolorated long enough.
Americans of every variety have the right to feel safe; this includes when making tough decisions such as abortion. to the PRO-LIFE FREAKS who are protesting this ordinance, I say to you: when was the last time a Pro-Choice fanatic showed up outside an adoption agency with pictures of children who were being abused, and neglected in an adopted home? When was the last time a Pro-Choice supporter tried to convince some poor woman to abort her baby instead of putting it up for adoption right outside the agency? And when was the last time we walked up to a single pregnant woman, who was entering the adoption process, and asked if we could pray for her?
Is sex out of wedlock not also a sin in the eyes of your right-wing, conservative God? The morality pendulum HAS to swing both ways. I don't approach you and harass you into changing your mind? So why do you constantly feel the need to approach others outside Planned Parenthood, which is a good, safe, and well intentioned organization and scare people?
Seriously. Back the hell off! It's 50 feet! 50-freaking-feet.
GET OVER YOURSELF!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
