Tuesday, May 6, 2014
The Roberts Court's Latest Outrage
I was going to write a probably lengthy, angry tirade about the Supreme Court's latest assault on civil rights, liberty, the Constitution, and plain common sense. A rant on how Justice Roberts obviously lied to the Senate when he said he honored precedent. A screed on the court's insensitivity to the rights of religious minorities, especially non-theists. Then I read Rmuse's article on PoliticusUSA: "It Is Time For Constitution Loving Americans To Stand Up To Right Wing Republicans." I don't think I could have done better. Everyone who worries about the degrading secular democracy our country was meant to be should read it. Here's the link:
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/02/19/time-constitution-loving-americans-stand-wing-republicans.html
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/02/19/time-constitution-loving-americans-stand-wing-republicans.html
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Two Christian SC Senators Block Third Grader’s State Fossil Proposal Because Jesus (via Americans Against The Tea Party)Sometimes, you begin reading about something and think, “Aww, how cute!” Other times, what should be a touching story of a child’s proposal to make the Woolly Mammoth South Carolina’s official state fossil passing the state House and Senate…
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Bill Moyers: What Ted Cruz Doesn't Want You To Know | #repost
What Ted Cruz Doesn’t Want You to Know (via Moyers & Company)By now it seems pretty clear that Senator Ted Cruz has a plan to occupy the White House. But he doesn’t want people to know too much about it. And he definitely doesn’t want you to know about the special interests that have already begun to bankroll…
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
When was the Fourteenth Amendment Repealed?t
Marriage is a social contract; rings are its symbols, its standard contract language is "to love and honor" each other "in sickness and in health," it's sealed with signatures on the license (and sealed with a kiss). As with any social contract it contains rights and privileges most of which are defined in state and federal law. While household finances are dealt with privately, they become of interest to the government, via courts, when a dissolution of the contract is sought. Income tax rates depend on marriage status, as can heiritable rights upon the death of one partner. In medical and end-of-life decisions, marriage status is very much a point of order. So why is it acceptable to deny these rights to only certain couples?
The Fourteenth Amendment states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridged the privileges or Immunities of citizens of the United States;...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Its final section states: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." (The amendment also prohibits holding any office, "civil or military" if one has engaged in insurrection or rebellion --sedition --but that's another topic.) Admittedly, the Fourteenth mostly deals with choosing elected officials, but Section 1 is clear about to whom rights are guaranteed. So I ask, again, why is it acceptable to deny rights to only certain couples?
Same-sex couples are gaining legal recognition, state by state, but I have no doubt there would howls about states' rights if the US Congress tried to pass a federal law declaring equal status (read: due equal rghts) to same-sex unions. Never mind that the bigots, homophobes, and religious right praised the federal, wrongly-named (and recently declared unconstitutional) Defense of Marriage Act. It seems there isn't a problem with the feds usurping states' rights when it fits certain ideology.
US Constitution:
Article IV
Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2
1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
"As a general rule, each state's marriage laws provide for reciprocity with the marriage laws of other states. In short, a validly married couple under the laws of the state in which they were married will be treated as validly married if they relocate to another state. However, this general principle of reciprocity is being steadily overturned with respect to civil unions." ("Legal Defense of Gay Marriage" by Sean Carter, whosoever.org)
Apparently I need a reputable constitutional scholar (those from Liberty university and Anton Scalia need not apply) to explain why marriage reciprocity doesn't pass constitutional muster. In those states where civil rights are honored, the legally filed records of same-sex unions fit "public Acts,Records, and judicial Proceedings" in Article IV. I think these unions also are covered by another part of the Constitution.
With the exception of simple homophobes, the objection to same-sex unions is based on religious beliefs. "But homosexuality is just wrong," they may cry, but when pressed as to why, the vast majority would probably boil it down to some god's law (usually the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible). That would make it covered by the First Amendment and laws barring religious discrimination.
"It isn't natural!" Except it is. Studies have put the figure at 10% though for a broad definition of the term. Census figures put it at about 4%. The only agreement is that the number depends on how one defines homosexual (include bisexual?, etc) and that science recognizes that a percentage of homosexuals has always existed in the human population. And humans aren't alone.
"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman,who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition. (from "1,500 animal species practice homosexuality," posted in: Medical Science News, published on October 23, 2006; news-medical.net). So there. Not an unnatural act, just one exhibited by a minority of the human population.
Minorities: another category protected by law....
The Fourteenth Amendment states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridged the privileges or Immunities of citizens of the United States;...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Its final section states: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." (The amendment also prohibits holding any office, "civil or military" if one has engaged in insurrection or rebellion --sedition --but that's another topic.) Admittedly, the Fourteenth mostly deals with choosing elected officials, but Section 1 is clear about to whom rights are guaranteed. So I ask, again, why is it acceptable to deny rights to only certain couples?
Same-sex couples are gaining legal recognition, state by state, but I have no doubt there would howls about states' rights if the US Congress tried to pass a federal law declaring equal status (read: due equal rghts) to same-sex unions. Never mind that the bigots, homophobes, and religious right praised the federal, wrongly-named (and recently declared unconstitutional) Defense of Marriage Act. It seems there isn't a problem with the feds usurping states' rights when it fits certain ideology.
US Constitution:
Article IV
Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2
1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
"As a general rule, each state's marriage laws provide for reciprocity with the marriage laws of other states. In short, a validly married couple under the laws of the state in which they were married will be treated as validly married if they relocate to another state. However, this general principle of reciprocity is being steadily overturned with respect to civil unions." ("Legal Defense of Gay Marriage" by Sean Carter, whosoever.org)
Apparently I need a reputable constitutional scholar (those from Liberty university and Anton Scalia need not apply) to explain why marriage reciprocity doesn't pass constitutional muster. In those states where civil rights are honored, the legally filed records of same-sex unions fit "public Acts,Records, and judicial Proceedings" in Article IV. I think these unions also are covered by another part of the Constitution.
With the exception of simple homophobes, the objection to same-sex unions is based on religious beliefs. "But homosexuality is just wrong," they may cry, but when pressed as to why, the vast majority would probably boil it down to some god's law (usually the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible). That would make it covered by the First Amendment and laws barring religious discrimination.
"It isn't natural!" Except it is. Studies have put the figure at 10% though for a broad definition of the term. Census figures put it at about 4%. The only agreement is that the number depends on how one defines homosexual (include bisexual?, etc) and that science recognizes that a percentage of homosexuals has always existed in the human population. And humans aren't alone.
"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman,who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition. (from "1,500 animal species practice homosexuality," posted in: Medical Science News, published on October 23, 2006; news-medical.net). So there. Not an unnatural act, just one exhibited by a minority of the human population.
Minorities: another category protected by law....
Friday, October 25, 2013
Scalia's racist remarks are deplorable
On October 15, while hearing arguments on a Michigan voter initiative to ban affirmative action in college admissions, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dismissively stated that the 14th Amendment -- which was explicitly passed in the wake of the Civil War to establish citizenship and voting rights for former slaves -- doesn't protect "only the blacks."
Justice Scalia has a history of denigrating the rights of African Americans, including contemptuously describing the landmark civil rights legislation known as the Voting Rights Act as the “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” That remark occasioned audible gasps in the usually staid courtroom where Supreme Court oral arguments are held.
As a person of color, I find Scalia's latest comments offensive. His coded reference to “the blacks,” when put in context with his history of trying to legislate against people of color from the bench, is an ugly dog whistle with clear racial overtones. That's why I started my own campaign on CREDOMobilize.com, which allows activists to start their own petitions. My petition, which is to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, says the following:
Apologize for your racist, out-of-touch comments on the 14th Amendment. Ignoring the history of prejudice that led to the passage of the amendment to protect freed slaves after the Civil War, as well as the intense discrimination that still exists today, is offensive and disrespectful toward all Americans who believe in equality and especially to African Americans and other people of color.
After a long history of slavery and discrimination, in the wake of the Civil War the 14th Amendment was created in response to issues faced by former slaves and African Americans, particularly at the ballot box. Scalia's flippant remarks about the amendment disregard and disrespect the struggle of African Americans and other people of color to achieve equality in the United States -- a struggle that continues for us today.
To dismissively suggest that "the blacks" don't face institutionalized prejudice that necessitates protection at the ballot box, in the workplace, in housing, our judicial system and virtually every aspect of American life is incredibly hurtful and offensive.
Scalia has a history of ignoring the reality that racism continues to exist. If we ignore his comments -- some that are blatantly racist and others that may be coded, dog whistle politics that may sound reasonable to some groups but send a very clear signal of hostility to minorities -- they will gain credence in the rest of society, and be used to justify future discrimination. But if we speak out now and demand an apology, we can show that the discrimination and disregard he promotes will not be tolerated by civil society.
Will you join me and add your name to my petition telling U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to apologize for his offensive comments about African Americans and discrimination?: http://act.credoaction.com/go/2324?t=6&akid=9259.1811497.JcAGks
Thank you for your support.
Bridget Todd
1. "Supreme Court justices skeptical of affirmative-action arguments," Washington Post, 10/16/13: http://act.credoaction.com/go/2331?t=8&akid=9259.1811497.JcAGks
Justice Scalia has a history of denigrating the rights of African Americans, including contemptuously describing the landmark civil rights legislation known as the Voting Rights Act as the “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” That remark occasioned audible gasps in the usually staid courtroom where Supreme Court oral arguments are held.
As a person of color, I find Scalia's latest comments offensive. His coded reference to “the blacks,” when put in context with his history of trying to legislate against people of color from the bench, is an ugly dog whistle with clear racial overtones. That's why I started my own campaign on CREDOMobilize.com, which allows activists to start their own petitions. My petition, which is to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, says the following:
Apologize for your racist, out-of-touch comments on the 14th Amendment. Ignoring the history of prejudice that led to the passage of the amendment to protect freed slaves after the Civil War, as well as the intense discrimination that still exists today, is offensive and disrespectful toward all Americans who believe in equality and especially to African Americans and other people of color.
After a long history of slavery and discrimination, in the wake of the Civil War the 14th Amendment was created in response to issues faced by former slaves and African Americans, particularly at the ballot box. Scalia's flippant remarks about the amendment disregard and disrespect the struggle of African Americans and other people of color to achieve equality in the United States -- a struggle that continues for us today.
To dismissively suggest that "the blacks" don't face institutionalized prejudice that necessitates protection at the ballot box, in the workplace, in housing, our judicial system and virtually every aspect of American life is incredibly hurtful and offensive.
Scalia has a history of ignoring the reality that racism continues to exist. If we ignore his comments -- some that are blatantly racist and others that may be coded, dog whistle politics that may sound reasonable to some groups but send a very clear signal of hostility to minorities -- they will gain credence in the rest of society, and be used to justify future discrimination. But if we speak out now and demand an apology, we can show that the discrimination and disregard he promotes will not be tolerated by civil society.
Will you join me and add your name to my petition telling U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to apologize for his offensive comments about African Americans and discrimination?: http://act.credoaction.com/go/2324?t=6&akid=9259.1811497.JcAGks
Thank you for your support.
Bridget Todd
1. "Supreme Court justices skeptical of affirmative-action arguments," Washington Post, 10/16/13: http://act.credoaction.com/go/2331?t=8&akid=9259.1811497.JcAGks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)