Tag Archives: gay rights

Political Rants

Harm vs. harm.

No denying that last week  was a big week in the world of Supreme Court jurisprudence. While I am no legal scholar, here are my two-cents on a few of the decisions:

Obergefell v. Hodges. The Court decided that the protections associated with marriage can no longer be denied to gay couples. About freaking time. It always struck me as ironic that we should forbid marriage to a group of people who seem to want it more than anyone else. Though I’m happy with mine, I am no firm believer in marriage as an institution. I think its only value – and this is my opinion, of course – is that it enables you to enjoy certain benefits granted by the government – tax advantages, visitation rights, property rights, etc. That’s the way things work; that’s the way our society is arranged. Given all that, couples of all sorts should be allowed to marry.

Eloquent as always, Justice Scalia.Marriage equality is seen by some evangelical Christians as a threat to their beliefs. Those who confer marriage licenses in some official capacity as well as those whose businesses serve the wedding market want the option to deny service to gay couples. Religious liberty statutes are cropping up everywhere. So, my question for these folks is, let’s consider the potential harm on either side. For the evangelicals, if gays can marry, their forfeit is being outraged and offended; it may affect their mood around the dinner table at Christmas. On the other hand, for gay couples, being denied the right to marry means not being able to share your life with the one you love, tend to them when they’re sick, build a life with them, etc. Far greater harm, I would argue.

Glossip v. Gross. Apparently the sight of a death row inmate writhing in pain for an extended period of time was not enough to convince the majority on the court to rule this ad-hoc medical procedure known as chemical execution unconstitutional. Justice Alito basically told the defendant-inmates that they need to identify an alternative method by which they may be done to death; otherwise, this method is good enough. Once again, thank you, Dubya Bush, for appointing this sorry piece of work; and thanks to your father for appointing the even sorrier Justice Thomas.

Enough bloviating for one day. Time for the mattress.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Crapucopea.

Not sure what to concentrate on this week for my rant, so I’ll break it up into bits.

Ukraine drama. I have heard endless reports on NPR and NBC about the Russian flag being raised above the Crimean capital and how much this is becoming like the bad old days of the Cold War. Much, too, has been made of Russian military exercises near the border of Ukraine, termed by the media as “provocative” – a word they no doubt borrowed from McCain or some other favored pol. Just rewind to their last reports about Korea and our planned military exercises there – did they use the same modifier? Didn’t think so. Not provocative in any wayThat potentially catastrophic confrontation-in-waiting apparently can withstand mock-invasions of North Korea and simulated bombing runs without being “provocative”. So, why are the Russian exercises any worse? If there’s a return to Cold War mentality, it’s on the part of our corporate media. (Most of our politicians have never left that particular ideological space.)

Arizona anti-gay bill. This notion of religious freedom, based on the dodgy concept of “who would Jesus refuse to serve,” is obviously based on a very skewed interpretation of Christian values – namely, tolerate no one different from you. That Jan Brewer vetoed it is no surprise. Why did it take her several days? Because the attention of the nation was on her for that stretch of time, and she was happy to bask in it – an art form the senior senator from her state has perfected over his decades in office.

Jobs and health. I’ve heard a number of reports about the CBO estimate of potential job losses related to the Affordable Care Act. These are mainly attributed to people who work specifically for a job related health care benefit choosing to opt out of the workforce. One economist / commentator I heard this morning suggested this might be a drag on the economy. But what, after all, is the economy? Is it metrics on productivity … or is it how well individuals are doing? When someone leaves a job they really don’t want, doesn’t that open a position for someone else? Should we really be chaining people to work and holding them hostage for the sake of health insurance coverage?

I think not.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Service.

After a whirlwind lame duck session for the 111th Congress, it appears as though gays will soon be able to serve openly in the military. I must emphasize the modifier “soon”, as it is not yet safe to make your sexual orientation known in the service, and it won’t be until the Administration and the Pentagon completes their review process. None the less, this was a long time coming, and I am glad for those in uniform for whom the repeal of DADT means a kind of liberation. DADT was implemented before we started asking way too much of our military – multiple deployments to multiple simultaneous occupations, heavy fighting over stretches of months at a time, high casualty rates, etc. – and it has simply outlived its mandate, in addition to being dead wrong from the start.

That’s all good, but it’s just a step in the right direction. Gay Americans are still second-class citizens, barred from full civil rights as of this moment. As of now, there is an institutional necessity to allow gays to join the military – with an all-volunteer force like ours, we cannot wage two (or perhaps three) simultaneous wars without providing incentives to talented people of every persuasion to participate. The trouble is, when they return to civilian life (those who don’t choose to make the military a permanent career), they find themselves unable to marry, to raise a family, or to hold certain types of positions in some states. Not a dissimilar situation to that of the late 1940s, early 1950s, when black soldiers returned to the segregated south and a nearly equally racist north. My guess is that it’s just a matter of time before the crumbling edifice of discrimination against gays falls entirely to pieces.

It is worth saying, too, that while we’re now legislatively bound to start welcoming gays into our military, we might want to take this opportunity to consider more carefully what we’re asking our military to do. Right now, we are involved in two indefensible conflicts. This is not the fault of those who serve – this is the fault of our policy makers and, by extension, us. It gives me little satisfaction to know that, while gays need no longer serve in fear of exposure and expulsion, they are still compelled to participate in conflicts that are killing thousands while making us decidedly less safe from attack.

If we’re asking people – gay and straight – to sacrifice, let’s make certain it’s for a damn good reason… one good enough that each of us would be willing to sacrifice in kind.

luv u,

jp