DOMA is Dead. Prop. 8 is Dead. Pride Month is ending on a strong note. Still gotta deal with it, though.

On Wednesday, June 26th, the Supreme Court, in a historic pair of decisions, struck down a key component of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), effectively rendering it moot, and via a procedural action, also effectively struck down California's Proposition 8, ruling that it's proponents do not have standing to defend the act if the state refused to do so. Today, acting under the instructions the Supreme Court spelled out in it's Majority Opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit lifted the stay it imposed on marriages while it was on appeal, clearing the way for same-sex marriages to resume. 

As a long time supporter for LGBTQ Rights, I was ecstatic when I found out about the decisions. I found out at work, and just settled into my desk after arriving from the last day of school when I received a notification on my tablet - the Supreme Court had just overturned DOMA and effectively struck down Prop. 8. As soon as I heard this, I have to admit, I shed a few tears - mainly because a huge stigma had been lifted on more then a few people I know. One of my closest friends is gay, and through my various jobs, a good number of my co-workers identified themselves as LGBTQ.

But for me, it's more then just knowing a few people that are gay that makes this a passionate issue for me. For me, it's just a basic principle of equality, freedom, and civil rights - "with liberty and justice for all." Love is a strong emotion, one of the strongest emotions there is, and to say that a few select group of people can deny attempt to deny that emotion, based on a book that was wirrten by a group of men over 2,000 years ago or through their own non-sensical thoughts is just a sad, sickening, maddening thought. Who are we, as imperfect humans, tell other whom they can love? If anybody claims they have that right, I'm sorry, but that is just plain bulls#!t.

My own mom, when we discuss this, often she says to me that she admires the LGBTQ community, because, as she puts it -

The LGBTQ people are a very strong group of people. To be able to withstand a lot, from people denying their humanity to people killing them solely because they love someone, they are very strong. I admire them, and I feel for them. Why do people treat like that? Why? There is no reason whatsoever that they should be oppressed  spat upon, solely for whom they love.

Honestly, mom, I don't know. I wish I knew, but I don't.

Law & Society: Is the Death Penalty good, or even necessary?

In this latest installment of Law and Society, in which I have a chance to explore and ponder my response to some of the issues we face today, in the form of a law class homework response, one of the questions I received was this: Is the Death Penalty good, or even necessary? The following is my response to this question, and hopefully, it will cause some questions or debates to go off inside your head. Enjoy.


Question: Is the Death Penalty good, or even necessary? 

Response: The use and effect of the Death Penalty has been debated ever since it has been used, in essence, form the beginning of time. However, as time progressed, opposition against the death penalty has grown, and today, there is huge debate whether to continue applying the penalty or to abolish it. Most states today have abolished the death penalty, or have not applied it to use in along time. New York State, for example, has outlawed the death penalty since 2005. Some states continue to allow the active use of the death penalty, and some take their relaxed restrictions to the extremes (see Texas). Globally, the United States is part of shrinking group of countries that actively uses the death penalty, and the countries we share company with in that group are the complete opposites of us, such as Iran, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Belarus and Indonesia, to name a few, and almost all have serious human rights violations. 

The Death Penalty is an unnecessary, barbaric, and unjust way to punish crime and their results. As Justice William Brennan stated in his concurring opinion in the case Furman v. Georgia, 

“Death is truly an awesome punishment. The calculated killing of a human being by the State involves, by its very nature, a denial of the executed person's humanity. The contrast with the plight of a person punished by imprisonment is evident. An individual in prison does not lose "the right to have rights." A prisoner retains, for example, the constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion, to be free of cruel and unusual punishments, and to treatment as a "person" for purposes of due process of law and the equal protection of the laws. A prisoner remains a member of the human family. Moreover, he retains the right of access to the courts. His punishment is not irrevocable. Apart from the common charge, grounded upon the recognition of human fallibility, that the punishment of death must inevitably be inflicted upon innocent men, we know that death has been the lot of men whose convictions were unconstitutionally secured….the punishment itself may have been unconstitutionally inflicted….yet the finality of death precludes relief. An executed person has indeed "lost the right to have rights." As one 19th century proponent of punishing criminals by death declared, "When a man is hung, there is an end of our relations with him. His execution is a way of saying, `You are not fit for this world, take your chance elsewhere.'” 

In essence, while death is an extreme punishment, the very notion of the state planning the death of one person is virtually denying their humanity. And the death penalty isn’t applied equally. A study known as the Baldus Study has shown that minorities who have committed a violent crime and face the death penalty have a bigger chance of being punished with death the white and Caucasians criminals do. It also discovered that minorities who were accused of killing a white person also had a great chance of receiving the death penalty then did a white person who was accused of killing a minority. As Justice William Murphy said, 

“Only by zealously guarding the rights of the most humble, the most unorthodox and the most despised among us can freedom flourish and endure in our land....” 

Death as a punishment does not guard our freedoms- it revokes them from us, and we need to protect our rights, even if it means guarding the rights of the most violent criminals. And the death penalty doesn’t address the root cause of crime in the first place- most criminals come from poor, broken families, and killing the guy doesn't pull the person out of poverty. When people are poor, they will do anything to get out, and some will resort to crime. Instead of executing, we need to help those families who are poor and need assistance, to help receive a good upbringing, with a quality education, without the stigma of being poor. And the death penalty doesn’t do that. It doesn't solve anything- if one guy is executed, another will be there to take his place. It is barbaric, inhuman, and it is cruel and unusual punishment for any crime, even for murder. I therefore respectfully dissent against the use of the death penalty, and in favor of repealing it as a method of punishment.     


Law and Society: This the second in a series of articles in which we explore the effects of law on society, and the effects of society on the law.   

Have certain punishments been more effective then others? Has any punishment been effective at all?

So, I'm taking a law class at my current high school, and we get homework everyday, in which we have to explore some of the current issues facing law and society today. As such, this gives me a chance to explore and ponder my response to some of the issues we face today, in the form of a law homework response. One of the questions we got as an assignment one day was this: What punishment do you think accomplished it's goal? Why? The following is my response to this question, and this marks the beginning of new segment in this blog, titled Law and Society, in which I will periodically share my responses to certain homework questions I received in my law class. Enjoy, and I hope all you have a Happy Holidays.
--------------------------------------------
Question: What punishment do you think accomplished it's goal? Why?


Response: The goal of punishments is to achieve a perfect society in which rules and laws are respected, under the threat of severe punishment for those who break them, in order to deter people from committing crimes. If were to look at the question from that perspective, then all punishments, have simply put, utterly failed to reach that goal. If punishments really did achieve their goal, then there would be no crimes, no human being would ever be harmed, and there would be peace, love and equality (in all forms), all over, and we would be living in a utopia, or a prefect society. It can come close to achieving it, but we will never see it happen, because we, as humans, are imperfect. It is in our nature to skirt or break rules and laws to achieve some (and hopefully very few) of our goals. 


However, if were to look at it from a different perspective, then punishments haven’t completely failed in the goal, and we could have a small glimmer of hope. From that perspective, then each type of punishment have widely varying rates of success. For example, some punishments, such as fines, deter most people from breaking laws because they are a nuisance to receive and shake off (think of traffic tickets), especially towards your wallet. Probation also is effective in most, but not in all cases, because it keeps the person in line while under the watch of a probation officer- if the person steps out of line, and if the offense is great enough, then the person will be given a more severe sentence, such as a hefty fine, a stricter set of probation guidelines, or some instances, even jail time. 


Incarceration, on the other hand has a much more mixed track record. On one hand, the average citizen fears going to jail, and the threat of going to jail for most crimes is enough to deter most people from doing serious crimes. On the other hand, the U.S. has one of the highest incarceration and re-incarceration rates in the world, and the threat of jail is often insufficient enough to deter career criminals from committing major, and often violent crimes. Usually, only the threat of long and severe prison sentences (Life, life without parole, 20 to life, as such) serve as a determent to most people, and even then, some criminals continue committing crimes. We must also note that people are sometimes thrown in jail for (sometimes) ridiculously small reasons as well, and that has helped the prison population rate to explode to record levels. Some offenses, such as carrying very small amounts of marijuana or using very, very small amounts of controlled substances, are given mandatory (and often long) prison sentences, while in reality, it could be better suited to send that person to rehabilitation. 


Lastly, there is the death penalty, usually used in extreme and violent cases (such as a violent robbery, murder, or an extremely violent sexual assault) and as such, in most states, it’s use is severely restricted, while in others, restrictions are more relaxed (for an extreme example, see Texas). Still, other states prohibit the use of the death penalty, calling it ‘barbaric’ and ‘unjust.’ New York State has prohibited the death penalty as a form of punishment. Some claim that this punishment, if used effectively, will deter people from committing serious and violent crimes under the threat of death, while others say that it is an ineffective and costly way to punish, stating that is applied unequally, and that there will always exist a small chance of error for executing a person for the wrong crime (it has happened), and that no life, no mater how despised, should be taken away, even if they are violent criminals. Still others point to it as cruel and unusual punishment, and point out that in societies where the death penalty is (or was) used commonly, the people there are disenchanted, oppressed, or both, and in most cases, the extreme use of it has led to rebellion. 


In short, no punishment has ever completely reached it’s goal- but they haven’t completely failed either. Each have widely varying degrees of success, but we can safely say that all are on the varying levels in terms of progress. Some punishments are more widely used and more effective, while others are less used, and then others are rarely used but sometimes effective or ineffective. Yet, they have all made some progress in coming closer to achieving the goal of a well-regulated and a perfect society, but we still have a long way to go. 


Law and Society: This the first in a series of articles in which we explore the effects of law on society, and the effects of society on the law.   

So, how to deal with in regards to immigration?

As we all know, immigration is one of the most controversial and divisive topics that out nation is facing right now, as well as being one of the hardest to solve- and inaction on this topic isn't helping. Some states, such as Alabama and Arizona, have tried to regulate this problem- by trying make immigration law themselves, yet these laws push the limits of civil rights. So in response, here is my basic framework in regards to immigration reform. 


My Plan for Immigration Reform


For People Who Committed Major (Felony) Crimes- (Rape, Assault, Homicide, Robbery, etc.)

• They must be deported, no questions asked. These people damage the reputation of immigrants everywhere, and letting them stay here won't help the problem. These are the type of people, along with gang members, that DHS should be concentrating on. Of course, they will be a given a hearing with their entitled rights, but if they are found guilty, the only punishment would be deportation.   

For People Who Are In Good Social Standing

• Must be living 7-10 Years in the United States or more.
• Preference given if they have a family and/or kids who are under the Age of 18.  
• They must be paying their taxes, or be on their way to paying off their debt to Uncle Sam.
• Must undergo a background check.
• Pass an English literacy and English fluency test, and pass a basic citizenship test (basic US history).

A large, lump sum "penalty" could be paid by people who did NOT have the proper visas for all 8 years, equivalent to 8 years visa fees + interest. People partially through the 8 years could pay the penalty for the number of years they were here illegally to be restored to "good standing" and then apply for visas for the remaining number of years.

This makes the government money, and allows a difficult, but possible, path to citizenship for illegals who have been living here and on otherwise good behavior under the old and flawed system, and it is NOT a handout. This is different from the dud of 1986, which basically gave anyone amnesty. This also makes new, desperately needed source of revenue for the government.  

• In the case of military service, 5 years of service with an honorary discharge from any branch of Armed Forces would be satisfactory to establish citizenship. The fees for visas and possibly taxes would be waived.
• Children or people who came as very young children and managed to get at least an Associates or a Master Degree, or have contributed Military Service to this country would also be allowed to apply for citizenship. The fees for visas and possibly taxes would be waived on a case by case basis, however.   

This would be the basic requirements for the majority of immigrants here in the United States. 

For People Who Committed Minor Crimes. 

• MUST have not committed any crime for 5 Years 
• Paid their taxes.
• Must know English.
• Must pass an English literacy and English fluency test, and pass a basic citizenship test (basic US history).
• A large, lump sum "penalty" could be paid by people who did NOT have the proper visas for all 8 years, equivalent to 8 years visa fees + interest. People partially through the 8 years could pay the penalty for the number of years they were here illegally to be restored to "good standing" and then apply for visas for the remaining number of years.

Another aspect of this plan would also include on going after employers who use immigrant labor, mainly because they know that immigrants would work for whatever wages, as long as it is work. Usually, immigrants are exploited, because they know that immigrants usually fear reporting such abuses to the proper authorities because of their status.  I would not mandate the the use of E-Verify, since it is still a work in progress, but employers would be subject to audits from time to time. This, in all, is my plan for immigration reform. Now, lets talk about those laws, shall we?

The proponents of the majority of these new laws in Alabama, Arizona, and other states say that because illegal immigrants, are well, illegally here, they are not entitled to any of the rights that U.S. Citizens are entitled to. The great majority also argue for the repeal of the 14th Amendment. Well, looks like some people either aren't brushed up on their political history, don't care about Constitutional Law, or weren't paying attention when taking Political Science. Why do we call it a democracy if we give, as Locke put it, the natural rights of all people of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to select people  and deny it to others? These are all rights, that according to Locke, all people are born with. If we deny it here to a select group, why even call it a democracy? A democracy is not a democracy when we deny it to a group of people. Some people argue that... 

"Illegal immigrants do not contribute to the U.S. as much as citizens do (except physical labor), and therefore cannot experience the same things we do." 

To this, I say BS. So just because in your mind, because they don't "contribute to the U.S. as citizens do," they don't have the right to experience the freedom and protection of the law we all enjoy? That they don't enjoy the natural rights that all people are born with? If we deny them the protection of the law, can we truly say that we are one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all? Explain why they are willing to work picking crops while being paid some low-a** wages and in some really terrible conditions. Those who claim that immigrants don't contribute much to the U.S. and that their rights should be infringed might as well cite Chief Justice's Roger Taney's opinion in Dred Scott, because it seems to emphasize their position.  Now, one of their favorite responses to this seems to be that since 

"Illegals are not citizens, therefore they have not consented to the American government that provides these rights to those who, as citizens, have consented to the American form of government. Therefore the American government does not exist to guarantee illegal immigrants these rights, only people who ARE citizens, or who are here legally in accordance with the very rules of the government that would provide them with those rights in the first place."

Well, since, that would be a violation of human rights. Since they aren't U.S. Citizens, they aren't entitled to their rights, eh?  So, let's say an immigrant has been accused of a crime- would he be given a fair and speedy trial, or would he be immediately assumed guilty, since as a non-citizen, he has no right to a fari trial and be sent to prison with due process of the law? That would be a violation of what America stands for- liberty and justice for all. Or if somebody committed a crime against an immigrant- would that person be prosecuted under the law, would he be let free without any sort of trial, simply because the victim is an illegal immigrant, and as such, has nor right to bring up a claim because he is not a citizen, and thus, not entitled to his rights? Now, the 14th Amendment. Many people are arguing for the repeal of that amendment, because it promotes immigration by allowing for so-called 'anchor babies," and since anyone born here is entitled to U.S. Citizenship, they are also entitled to the benefits that come to it.  Well, first of all, the benefits are only for the child, not for the parent, and second of all, Why? You would be depriving a chance for the child to become a potential asset to this country, to allow that child to aspire for his dreams in the greatest country in the world. Look, I'm the son of illegal immigrants. I work hard in school (my grades show it), I read The New York Times, I'm deeply interested in law, politics, and history- and I was born here, thus I am a U.S. Citizen. What about the other kids who are just like me, or are similar to me, but yet wouldn't be citizens if the 14th Amendment is repealed? What would happen to them? Should they let their dreams die away? What about me? Would I get my citizenship taken away because I just happened to be the son of illegal immigrants? I already mentioned in an earlier blog post about the rights of immigrants under the 14th Amendment. Let's see, has the U.S. Supreme Cout affirmed other rights for immigrants? I'm hearing they have. Let' see..

• United States v. Wong Kim Ark
• Truax v. Raich
• Yick Wo v. Hopkins
• Oyama v. California
• Takahashi v. Fish & Game Commission
• Graham v. Richardson

Wow. All those cases that affirmed the rights of immigrants, and are still in force today. Man, leaves you something to think, eh? Yet, we must continue to fight these laws, and challenge these laws forcefully in court as the deprivation of liberties, using these cases as ammo. We can only hope. 

Today & In response to Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

I am living in a peculiar situation when it comes to gay rights. For those who read this blog, you most likely know that I am a supporter of gay rights, especially when it comes to the question of whether they should be allowed to marry or not. I am also a Catholic, albeit a very liberal one. On June 24, New York became the sixth state to legalize Same-Sex Marriage by a very close vote, 33 in favor to 29 against. While I cheered this decision, let us just say that Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, the leader of the Brooklyn & Queens Diocese (which is the Diocese my church is situated) was not. In an editorial which appeared in the New York Daily News, he slammed the decision, calling it a tragedy in which we

....we no longer understand the primary purpose of marriage as the institution by which a man and woman bring new life into the world and teach the child to become a productive citizen....Marriage is reduced to an empty honor....

The following parts of this post will be a reply to the Bishop in charge of the Diocese in which I live in, thereby indirectly challenging a superior. And so I begin. 

He begins his argument by stating that society values it's young, no question about that. However, it is in the third paragraph in which he states that

Sociologists and psychologists agree that stable families where a mother and father live together in a loving union are a key predicator of a child's future health, well-being and success.

You may ask yourselves, Well, this paragraph is innocent, he's just saying that a children raised with both parents is crucial to success  No question about that. The problem here is that when you dig deeper into the argument, he is implying that a child raised with a gay or a lesbian couple cannot have raise a child as well as a straight couple can. Not so, states the American Psychological Association, together with the California Psychological Association,  The American Psychiatric Association, and The American Association For Marriage and Family Therapy, in which it stated in a brief filed in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that there is no scientific basis to support the claim that Gay Couples cannot raise a child as good as a heterosexual couple, and in the case that they have children, their children are just as healthy or well adjusted as one raised with heterosexual parents. (Section IV, Subsection B.)  In their brief, they state

Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature....Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.

With just this excerpt from their massive 57 page brief, it smashes the poorly disguised argument of my dear Bishop. I mentioned earlier in this post that the bishop claimed that marriage had been reduced to an empty honor. To address this concern- when has marriage has ever been completely respected- it has almost never been. Men have always cheated on their wives and vice versa. People have always divorced people, maintained other spouses, etc- if marriage was ever sanity, Henry VIII would never split off from the church over some pathetic divorce.  Today, there is no doubt that marriage is not as respected, if it even was.  

-------------------------------------

Today is July 24, 2011. Today was the first day in which we extending the meaning of "with liberty and justice to all" to a group of people who were being denied those rights for years- the LGBT community. For the first time, same-sex couples were given the right to marry in the state, giving them equal standing with straight couples. Yet not everyone greeted this with open arms, of course. We had the usual protesters- the National Organization of Marriage, State Senator Ruben Diaz, and evangelicals. Even though I disagree with them, I usually would get along with them, as they are very civil. And then we have those who feel the need to stoop down to the level and behavior of a spoiled five-year old child. Those people, as we all know, is the good ol' Westboro Baptist Church. Most people heard of them in the landmark Supreme Court Case Synder v. Phelps in which a father of fallen solider sued the WBC for damages following their protest of military funerals, in which they carried signs saying "God hates Fags" and "God hates America" and all. After hearing that New York State legalized same-sex marriage, they decided to come to protest, stating their reasons in typical language suitable of people who demeanor appears to be those of again, a spoiled five-year old child. Here they go.

WBC will picket the reprobates of fag-infested New York state to remind them that God defined marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman for life.That means NO fag marriage, no dyke marriage and no divorce + remarriage! For their defiance of their Lord, New Yorkers will suffer the wrath of God being poured out on them from the sky, just as others in history who have followed this path experienced.

Right. If I'm a fag infested person, as they call, for supporting equality and fulfilling the words of the pledge of allegiance, which state "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" so I'm proud to be one. If I am to be called a reprobate, so be it, and I'm proud of it, basking in the comfort that I'm being called this for supporting the civil rights of the LGBT community. These 'fags' as the WBC calls them, are real people, people who deserve the right to marry and love whomever they choose, who deserve the rights we all enjoy. If I'm defying the lord, so be it. If I have to suffer the wrath of god  from the sky, I'll be happy to to, because I'm doing so to guarantee rights for all.  I saw them today as I was going to the Brooklyn DA's office for my Mock Trial Meeting, and I just ignored them. Because that is what need to do. Ignore them, and take comfort at whatever names they call us, because we should be proud to be 'fags' if it means fighting for the rights of the LGBT community.

Just some food for thought. Enjoy.

Thoughts on Independence Day.

Today is July 4th, the 235th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which formerly symbolized the independence of the thirteen original colonies from Great Britain. It contains some some of the most inspirational words in the history of man, and with oft-quoted words being

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.

These words have served as an inspiration for generations of people, from the French (see- French Revolution) to Germany, to Canada, and even Ho Chi Minh to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It represents a moral standard to which the United States of America must strive for, a ringing bell to improve the plight of those who suffer. Yet, when this was adopted, we couldn't completely say this phrase without keeping a straight face, because slavery was prevalent at the time, a stunning contrast to the phase that "all men are created equal." As time went on, we slowly began to push this phrase closer to reality, but we still couldn't say it  with certainty. Jim Crow was still around, making men unequal among us. Today, Jim Crow is gone, thanks to the civil rights movement who struggled make sure that this famous phrase was applied to the South. But today, we still cannot say with utmost certainty that "all men are created equal." Today, scores of new laws passed in states around the nation are tailored to deny that immigrants are among the men that are created equal, when the great majority come here to work and respect this country- and grateful to it for the chances it gives. Most of these laws are copycat versions of the original law enacted in Arizona, S.B 1070. Some of the most draconian laws, such as the one in Alabama, which requires, in a blatantly and discriminatory manner, requires public school districts to determine the immigration status of it's own students and their parents and report them states. Furthermore, it provides a challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Plyler v. Doe, which ruled that

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[n]o State shall. . . 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." (Emphasis added.) Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Indeed, we have clearly held that the Fifth Amendment protects aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful from invidious discrimination by the Federal Government...Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." The Equal Protection Clause was intended to work nothing less than the abolition of all caste-based and invidious class-based legislation...Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction — either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States — he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

 As The New York Times aptly states,

The state’s law seems designed to challenge that ruling, as it turns school officials into de facto immigration agents and impels frightened parents to keep their children home.      

We still have along way to go in order to ensure that "all men are created equal" and that all men are ensured with unalienable Rights, "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Yet, we closer to reaching those goals than most of the countries around the world are. We have a long way to go, but let us remember that we must strive to uphold those goals and that statement with the utmost regard, to everyone who lives and resides in this nation, in the United States of America. 


Happy Independence Day, people. Happy 235th birthday, America.    

Homosexuals must be equals too.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was passed in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton as Republicans in the house held a gun to his head while preparing reforms in welfare and the eventual shutdown of the federal government. It defined marriage as recognized by the federal government between one man and one women (Wow. I thought the goal of Republicans was to lower the scope of the federal government, not expand it.), and that no state was required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in other state. This only strengthened the resolve of Bowers v. Hardwick, which effectively killed any chance of the Supreme Court giving rights to the LGBT Community in the 1990's (Note- the Court reversed itself in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas). In the majority opinion given Justice White, he attempted to justify the denial of rights to homosexuals by saying that  

It is obvious to us that neither of these formulations would extend a fundamental right to homosexuals...proscriptions against that...have ancient roots....

In Blackmun's dissenting opinion, which was joined by Marshall, Brennan, and Stevens, he scolded the other justices for relying on tradition to deny homosexual their rights. He stated that 

...before Georgia can prosecute its citizens for making choices about the most intimate aspects of their lives, it must do more than assert that the choice they have made is an "abominable crime not fit to be named among Christians"...And so we protect the decision whether to marry precisely because marriage "is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects...The Court claims that its decision today merely refuses to recognize a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy; what the Court really has refused to recognize is the fundamental interest all individuals have in controlling the nature of their intimate associations with others...The assertion that "traditional Judeo-Christian values proscribe" the conduct involved, Brief for Petitioner 20, cannot provide an adequate justification for § 16-6-2. That certain, but by no means all, religious groups condemn the behavior at issue gives the State no license to impose their judgments on the entire citizenry. The legitimacy of secular legislation depends instead on whether the State can advance some justification for its law beyond its conformity to religious doctrine... petitioner's invocation of Leviticus, Romans, St. Thomas Aquinas, and sodomy's heretical status during the Middle Ages undermines his suggestion that § 16-6-2 represents a legitimate use of secular coercive power. A State can no more punish private behavior because of religious intolerance than it can punish such behavior because of racial animus. "The Constitution cannot control such prejudices, but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect." No matter how uncomfortable a certain group may make the majority of this Court, we have held that "[m]ere public intolerance or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of a person's physical liberty." 

I could go on and on from Blackmun's dissent, but this section from his dissent demonstrates that anyone who argues that Homosexuality isn't allowed because of religion, or because it has never been allowed, this smashes those arguments. Also, if anybody brings up the claim of religion, or that homosexuals are representatives from the devil, I quote Pope John Paul II, who stated that homosexuals possess the same inherent dignity and rights as everybody else. Some may ask why I use a dissent, since that is not a majority opinion, so it carries less weight. A dissent is used to bring up debate by offering a differing view on the subject, and to hope that it inspires other courts later in the future to "correct the mistakes and nearsightedness of prior courts." 


Now, I use my own words. Why do we deny the right to people love the person they choose? Why do we deny people to live life the way they want to, to love whom they want, be it a man or a women? If they love each other, be both men or women, gay or lesbian, transgender or bisexual, let them love each other. That, besides taking one's life, is one of the worst decisions or crime we can do- denying the people the right to love the person and live with the person they want to. Homosexuals are people. They are or neighbors, friends, family, classmates, workmates, everything. We must treat them every person person, as Pope John Paul II stated with dignity and respect, as every other person expects and should be treated, regardless of their sexual preferences.  


Today, DOMA is being challenged by courts around the nation, and in most cases, the courts have struck down the law, saying it infringes on the rights of homosexuals. The Department of Justice has given up trying to defend the law (which it should have done a couple years ago) yet the Republicans in the House of Representatives want to continue to defend the law at taxpayer's expense. If the Republicans feel the need to defend this law, by all means let them do it. However, to do so at taxpayer expense, one at a high cost since they probably will hire an expensive, high-powered private firm that will charge a high rate is wrong, at a time when Republicans are butchering the budget while refusing to raise taxes on the high earners give us something to think about- Are they more concerned with defending inequality and injustice, or are they really concerned on the budget? If they are concerned about the budget, then Republicans should hire a law firm whose fees will not be astronomically expensive or just stop defending the law, and thus, end a great injustice and inequality.