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.

The truth is different than what you think.

When the Tea Party gained power the last couple of years, they claimed they were representing American interests, real American values, protecting American business from big government and from attacks abroad- in short, they claimed to be real Americans.

Looks like the truth is different that what most people think.

The Institute for Liberty, a Tea Party organization that claims to represent the small businesses of America, has for some strange reason defended the interests of a giant Indonesian company, Asia Pulp & Paper, who hired it to avoid paying tariffs the United States Government has imposed on it. Now that's interesting, for all this while I thought the Tea Party of America was supposed to represent the little man, the man who fears big government who is choking small businesses. Turns out they are lobbying for a big company, an Indonesian company nonetheless. Now, I'm not saying those people at the Institute for Liberty shouldn't be doing this- they have every right to be doing this, seeing as it is a political organization, but the point here is the fact that while claiming to be defending American values, it is lobbying for an Indonesian company who has a questionable record and in fact, most Tea Party groups are leery to Big Business. Yet in a way is the Institute for Liberty lobbying for Asia Pulp & Paper? Let's check it out. And of course we have to start with the great founding fathers and the good old Constitution. Andrew Langer, the leader of the group compared the tariff to those the British imposed on the colonies in the 1700's. However, we have to point out some holes in this argument- while the British at that time were imposing the tariff's in a attempt to teach the colonies a lesson in rebelling against the Mother Country, the U.S. government is imposing the tariff to protect American business, something which I thought was a big goal of the Tea Party Movement- protecting American interests. Sounds very hypocritical, don't you think? In an unusual turnaround they also started attacking American businesses. I also thought the Tea Party was Pro-Business. Doesn't sound very pro-American, Pro-Business to me, and since this a huge company, wouldn't the repeal of the tariff hurt American small businesses, which I thought this organization defended? Hmm, very puzzling, don't you think?

Let's go to the Asia Pulp & Paper, the company who seems to be allied with this organization- they have been cited for questionable logging polices, receiving subsides from China & Indonesia, and questionable labor practices as well. Do they want us to think that is just a coincidence that a Tea Party organization starts supporting the company last year when the government was on the verge of announcing the tariff? Of course they do. It's worthy to mention what Mr. Langer's reasons in saying that this is important to Americans- Textbook and Children's books prices could increase (Gasp! Oh, wait, they have rising for some time, and textbooks have always been expensive), and Americans will end up paying more for fried chicken because the paper the bowl is made of is from paper made in Asia- he might as well just say that this is taking away American's choice on how to die- obesity-since this will raise the price of fried chicken, a chief factor in the obesity epidemic. He claims that by raising tariffs we are taking away jobs from Southeast Asia that desperately need it -I didn't know it was our duty to provide jobs there. I thought our duty was to protect American business. Sounds very hypocritical doesn't it, if the Tea Party was founded to defend American interests and businesses. Leaves you thinking, doesn't it?