DOMA's Demise

-
On the morning of June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the law which prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage, in a narrow 5 to 4 vote. 

In the opinion for the majority, Justice Kennedy wrote, "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

In a sister decision, regarding Hollingsworth vs. Perry, the court ruled that the traditional marriage activists who originally put Proposition 8 on California's ballot had no legal standing to appeal the ruling which struck down the state's ban on same sex-marriage.  The  ruling essentially legalized same sex marriage in California, making it the 13th state to recognize the institution.

While these rulings are being hailed as milestones for equal rights, they do leave some questions unanswered.  According to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, a marriage which is legally performed in one state is recognized as valid in all 50 states, yet according to the DOMA ruling, the federal government must recognize same-sex marriage in all states where such marriages can legally obtained.  So, if a same-sex couple marries in one state, then moves to a non-same-sex marriage state, does the federal government still recognize the marriage?

Instead of trying to answer questions such as that, Tea Party poster girl, Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) offered this public statement:  "Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted."

Representative Bachmann, and others like her, are still trying to use God as an excuse to deny equal rights to same-sex couples.  Being a Christian myself, I find such use of God's word to be highly offensive.
-
A BRIEF DETOUR VIA MY SOAP BOX
2000 years ago, when Christ walked with the apostles, old people were taken care of by their adult children or they weren't taken care of.  Thus, marriage that couldn't produce children, same-sex marriage, was considered to be taboo for practical reasons by Judeo/Christian thinkers.  Such a taboo may have been a product of the best thinking of the time, but it's just wrong by any modern standard.

Faith should never be used to justify bigotry.  In my mind, having true faith means accepting people's differences & trusting that God knew what He was doing when He made people the way He made them.  HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S DOING!
SOAP BOX DETOUR ENDS
-
Civil rights still have a long row to ho in this country.   However, these two rulings have put us ever so much closer to realizing true equality across the board.
-
The courthouse picture above was created by a government unit of the United States  and is in the public domain under U.S. law.   
-


Follow my blog with Bloglovin

The Struggle Continues

-

The Cheerios commercial above tells the story of a little girl who pours cereal on her sleeping dad's chest in a well meaning attempt to help his heart.  What was meant to depict a sweet little moment of loving concern, in order to sell breakfast cereal, has turned into a PR nightmare for General Mills.

The commercial, featuring a mixed race couple and their daughter, has motivated two entirely different camps to send tens of thousands of complaints to the food manufacturer.

• White supremacists complained, in mass, about the depiction of a mixed race couple as being acceptable.

• A portion of African American women complained, in mass, that such depictions typically feature Caucasian females and African American males, rather than vice versa.

Sadly, the first group of nay sayers barely surprised me.   Their reaction is another symptom of a recently revived sickness infecting this country.  As recently as 2011, Minnesota legislators proposed passage  of a bill which would've resegregated public schools by race.

A year later, similar minds in South Carolina tried to make possession of a government-issued photo I.D. mandatory in order to vote.  This sounds reasonable until one takes into account the fact that, "an estimated 81,983 voters in South Carolina do not possess a government-issued photo ID, mainly because of missing or inaccurate personal documents. These are mostly elderly, black longtime residents."

Southern conservatives are literally trying to revive Jim Crow in order to, "take their country back."  "Back from what?" I would ask.  Back from tolerance, equality, and brotherhood?  Are these really things to be overcome?

True, we white folk had it nice when, "everyone knew their place."  We had first crack at good jobs, public bus seating, and restaurant food among other perks of our perceived birthright.  The price of these luxuries was merely the subjugation of an underclass based on race.

The price seemed cheap to us.  As long as the underclass entertained us by singing Mammy, then politely left by the back door, we didn't have to look into the eyes of those being turned away from white hospitals, being corralled to the back of the bus, and being denied the right to vote or attend adequately funded schools.

Yes, ignorance truly was bliss.  It's not something we should look to return to though.  It's a state of affairs we should constantly struggle to remain above.

As for the second group of objectors, I'd ask if they remember the Willises from The Jefferson's?  Tom was Caucasian and Helen was African American.  More recently, on the big screen, a Caucasian appearing Spock courts, Swahili born, Lt. Uhura.

Even if these inverse examples didn't exist, the depiction of any mixed race couple, by a multi-billion dollar corporation, is a positive thing.  Anything that shows races interacting peacefully, even lovingly, should be scene as a positive message, saying people are people despite our physical differences.
-

Guns Don't Kill People, But They Make It Easier For Lunatics To

-
Those of you who receive my newsletter know this blog was to be on the recreation of our heroes.   I was going to examine the revamping of characters such as Sherlock Holmes into a contemporary detective, Superman into a dark brooding hero, etc...

I was recouping from a nasty stomach bug and mulling the blog over in my mind, when my friend Sonya began posting her outrage at events at Santa Monica College on her  Facebook page.  Realizing something ugly had just taken place, I switched my podcasts off and turned CNN on.

Police in S.W.A.T. gear were ushering additional squad cars onto the scene and "encouraging" reporters to stay behind the yellow crime tape.  I soon learned that an ebony clad gunman's rampage in Santa Monica had left four people dead.

Armed with a semi-automatic rifle & 1,300 rounds of ammo, an assailant's spree began at home by killing his father and brother, and setting their house ablaze.  He then carjacked a lady's car and shot at a public bus, eventually making his way to the aforementioned college campus where he shot at several people and the library.  The shooter ended up killing four people and wounding five others before being put down by police.

This was yet another link in the long bizarre chain I wrote about back in January.  Somehow a portion of our population has accepted the idea that violence is an acceptable response to anger and/or frustration.  Why?

I used to poopoo the idea that TV & video game violence lead to real world violence.  "Surely," I told myself, "people can distinguish between fiction and reality."  The idea that real people would kill others, in an attempt to mimic The Joker, The Punisher, or The A-Team was completely absurd to me.  Perhaps I was wrong.

Be that as it may, the moment we begin censoring content for violence is the moment we start the slippery slope toward only being able to publish/perform state approved messages.  None of us want to live in that world.

So, what can we do?

We can make guns harder to get.  Without the ability to obtain a military assault rifle, the Santa Monica assailant couldn't have caused the mayhem he caused.  He couldn't have done it.

The U.S, averages 87 gun deaths each day as a function of gun violence, with an average of 183 people being injured, according to the University of Chicago Crime Lab and the Centers for Disease Control. Yet, in Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), during 2011 & 2012 combined, there was a total of 44 gun related homicides.  The difference being, the British government legally curtails ownership of guns.

Before you cry, "2nd Amendment," can we all agree that we can buy meat in stores, call the police, and protect ourselves with tazers and mace when we're in the bad part of town?  Private citizens no longer need to keep and bare arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia, which makes the 2nd Amendment obsolete.

You can't tell me it's OK for our government to collect meta-data on our phone calls, in the name of national security, but it's not OK for them to legally curtail the ownership of guns.  The fact of the matter is, if gun ownership was legally curtailed, the police would have legal cause to confiscate such weapons BEFORE tragedies like this occur.
-