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.

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.

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.