"Skim Milk"

Looking through the New Yorker, I found a lot on the DOMA and Prop 8 cases. There was info on DOMA, Prop 8, and the issue of state or federal government. I found a article that listed a lot of quotes from the justices hosted by the New Yorker which I will use a lot. Though whether it can be called an article is somewhat debatable.

In the actual article, "THE SKIM MILK IN EDITH WINDSOR’S MARRIAGE," it talks about how Edith Windsor is a lesbian widow residing in New York state who, despite her marriage being recognized in New York, was denied spousal estate tax and had to pay 300k because DOMA didn't let the federal government acknowledge her marriage. This is what Justice Ginsburg was referring to when she said,”... two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.” Windsor had a skim milk marriage because she only got a extremely few number of benefits for being married to her wife. Justice Kagan quoting a House report says, “Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.” Perhaps what Congress was doing when DOMA was first passed was simply going with the times. I don't know the statistics but I wouldn't be surprised if homosexuality just wasn't that big like it is now. Perhaps it was a rare thing to meet a gay man at the mall. If that’s the case, then it is fair to say that DOMA passing was a understandable thing, not agreeable, but understandable. If the House was voting on passing DOMA today, I highly doubt it would go through. Today, homosexuality is a much more accepted and common thing. Unless you’re highly religious, you wouldn't make a fuss at seeing a gay couple at the mall. For this reason, I think time periods play a role in what legislation is past.

In California, Prop 8 is different only because it was passed by the state therefore also enforced by the state, this is where state v. federal government comes into play. But another view that Justice Kennedy brings into the equation is said like this,”There are some forty thousand children in California, according to the red brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don’t you think?” I think those voices are important. If a child happens to live with daddy and daddy for most of his life and he’s is well cared for and happy. Who gives a damn? The children like their family, why tear them apart? that can be viewed as as pretty screwed up on the government’s part if this was to come to pass.

Now, if the Supreme Court did rule DOMA and call it a state matter, then DOMA was be declared unconstitutional right away, however, Prop 8 wouldn't be, and there lies a problem. It would let states pick whether or not to allow gay marriage . In my opinion, that’s not good enough. This should be a nationwide ruling to allow equality across the board. 

Prop 8 Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is hearing a case on Doma and  prop 8 simultaneously. On the legality of Prop 8 is questionable only because it was voted upon by the citizens of California. Justice Antonin Scalia said, “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?” My answer is, it became unconstitutional when discrimination was declared illegal. Justice Scalia asked this while hearing the defense of Proposition 8 of California which defines marriage as one man and one woman, pretty much a mini Doma. Despite Prop 8 being voted upon by the citizens of California, what they did was technically illegal.To act against any one group because their or beleifs or differences is discrimination and has already been declared unconstitional. By that line of reasoning it should also apply to Doma, but there is 2 different cases regarding each law which both do the same thing. During the hearing it was also said, “The right to get married, the right to have the relationship of marriage is a personal right. it is apart of the right of privacy, association, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If anything, that shows legalization of gay marriage, but that also shows that it should be a state issue rather than a issue of the Supreme Court. That quote pretty much says the first amendment defends gay marriage. if someone wants to marry anyone else, it is a private thing. However for legal purposes, it is regulated and overseen by the government, otherwise no one would get benefits for being married other than “love.”

With the privacy of couples, how does homosexuality affect anyone else’s marriage? how does it affect the concept of marriage? Justice Elena Kegan said, “What harm do you see happening in when and how and what harm to the institution of marriage or to opposite sex couples?” The only harm comes through those of strong religious belief. There was a lot of picketers talking about gay marriage being wrong for religious reasons. However, since the separation of church and state, not a single fuck will be given because that cannot have any affect on the decisions of the Supreme Court which is a federal institution. Therefore, Whether or not your belief in homosexuality is wrong only matters in your personal decisions and not to the decisions of others who happen to be in love with someone who is of the same sex.

If this continues like this then either the Supreme court will make the ruling of the legality of gay marriage or decide it to be a state issue. either way, there is no way Doma or Prop 8 can be determined as constitutional.

Works Cited

My works cited is the video posted by The Washington Post. it is also found on The Washington Post Website and is accesible that way.

Supreme Ruling

I originally intended to write more about gay supporting advertisements, but the article from BBC caught my eye, “Gay marriage: Supreme Court justices criticise Doma”. I have written previously about how Doma has been declared unconstitutional several times before in lower federal courts and about it reaching the Supreme Court docket. However, time has passed and now there are articles about the Supreme Court.
Recently the Supreme Court has been discussing constitutionality on the Doma act and California’s gay marriage ban. Justice Kennedy seems more the type to be concerned with whether or not the issues are worth being decided on by the Supreme Court when he thinks gay rights is something that should be decided by the states. The Supreme Court is making a decision in June and depending on Justice Kennedy as he happens to be a swing vote between the liberals and conservatives.
As I’ve mentioned before, Doma gives a legal definition to marriage and defines it as one male and female. Anyone who fits this definition gets the various benefits from the federal government that is served to the legally married. This effectively denies any acknowledgement to gay couples and refuses to give them any benefits. Acoording to Justice Kennedy,” The question is whether or not the federal government under a federalism system has the authority to regulate marriage”. If the federal government did not have this authority, how would they know who gets what in regards to taxes and other benefits? While this might not seem morally right, it is a necessary evil to contain order and organization.
All gay rights supporters would hope that a decision like this from the Supreme Court would carry nationwide and gay marriage and make legal everywhere. However, even with a big decision, the Supreme Court is ruling on Doma, not gay marriage in general. Therefore, would this merely be a stepping stone towards national unity in legalizing gay marriage or could it actually be used to carry that goal to completion now?

Publicity

These ads show homosexuality in a positive light and are being used to advertise various products. The Snickers ad shows that even big name brands are allowing homosexuality to be attached to their name. While this doesn’t exactly mean that Snickers is completely for gay rights; it however does mean that they acknowledge and are ok with it. Throughout the course of time it is fair to say that gay rights have become a more tolerant existence of society through time. In, “15 Ads That Changed TheWay We Think About Gays And Lesbians,” Samantha Felix says,

 

we have come a long way since those days [referring to the ads from 1950]. Ads today are both inclusive and respectful, and often boldly targeting the LGBT community directly.

 Truth is that while, as I've mentioned in previous blogs, violence and persecution still exist you can see that there is a progression towards equality. A beneficial thing about the media is that it is completely viewer driven. Meaning that whatever hot topic or likes and dislikes that society has, so will the media. However, it is the same vice versa. Therefore companies producing ads that show support for homosexuality means that either society supports it or that particular company is trying to push society into that direction. Either intention is a good thing for gay rights.

Obama Support

                In previous post I made an accusation saying that Obama wasn’t doing too much as far as supporting gay rights. I have to admit that I was wrong to say that because I didn’t do much research into that particular angle. In the process of doing more research into this topic I found a published document from The Hill newspaper. Amie Parnes talks about how Obama has always supported gay rights but didn’t actually do anything about it until his second term.

            Gay rights activists--some of whom donated vast sums of money to Obama's two presidential campaigns--say they were also disappointed by the president's efforts in the first couple of years of the administration. They felt as though the White House dragged its feet on repealing "don't ask, don't tell," which banned gays from serving openly in the military, and on other issues.

            It’s understandable that when Obama does something of this magnitude there’s going to be a mass resistance. Obama has made it clear in his campaigning and inauguration address that he will put more into assuring gay rights. But he shouldn’t be just starting this term; his opposition will only get stronger and his loyalty and standings will only get questioned. Obama accepted these funds from the LGBT and other supporters and while public office holders get lobbied all the time; this was something that was expected of him before. Now that he’s into his second term Obama is being more consistent in his support of gay rights and he has,

            offered an immigration proposal that would give the same benefits to heterosexual and same-sex couples, called on the Boy Scouts to open its membership to gays, and seen the Pentagon announce it would offer certain benefits to same-sex couples.

For a second term, it’s possible to say Obama is starting off with a bang.

Works Cited

Parnes, Amie. "President all in for gay rights." Hill 7 Feb. 2013: 1. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.

Persecution... Again

I was reading my favorite news outlet again when i saw this, Londonderry mother seeks answer over son's death. It's your regular sob story, poor guy died. Not to sound heartless or anything but that's really starting to get cliche. Anyway, the article references how he's been persecuted and targeted in the past for being homosexual and now the guy showed up dead. While there's no proof that his death was a hate crime, it obviously wouldn't be too much of a jump to assume that it is. And after all; dead men tell no tale unfortunately.
The thing is, what happened to minding your own business and keep walking? Where does it come in that once someone spots a gay guy its open season to beat and even kill the guy? I think that once upon a time African Americans were targeted for persecution but now that rarely if ever happens. With that in mind, homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time yet they're still being persecuted and hated. Perhaps if we got a gay man or woman into office the persecution will lessen. What would it take to stop? I'm assuming its not some disease or mental disability. Then what? why is the fact that just becuase one person is different from another violence has to ensue? and i know this is getting past just homosexuality but the fact is; this stuff happens and half the time we don't have a damn clue why.


Works Cited
WEST, FOYLE. "Londonderry mother seeks answer over son's death." BBC (2013): 1. Web.

A Line

I currently have a best friend who is only weeks away from having her firstborn, I look at her and her fiance and how happy they are as a couple with a upcoming newborn; gay couples deserve that piece of happiness as well.

While, for obvious reasons, gay couples can't go through the traditional process of having a child, they go for adoption. Since gay marriage has been legalized, adoption agencies can't turn away gay couples because of that reason.

"They basically suggested that any law that distinguishes between same-sex couples and different-sex couples, whether it's for purposes of marriage or anything else, violates the Constitution if the government is doing it, (that) the government can't make those distinctions," Picarello said.

This article is aimed at the Catholic adoption agencies in particular and for this quote it's saying that even though the Catholic people obviously find gay marriage immoral, by law they are required to forsake their beliefs and allow gay couples to walk in and adopt a child. I feel like that a pretty big "Screw you"  to the churches face.

While i am in obvious support for gay rights, there has to be a line where other people and in this case religions are concerned. It's a pretty common fact that certain people are against gay marriage. Those people own businesses, work in the government, or are even realtors. Yet, by law, if they turn away someone just because of sexuality, they can be sued for discrimination. and in the case of the Catholic adoption agencies, they're forced to sit and play nice no matter how much they want to throw the gay couple out. Those people were raised and have believed their entire lives that homosexuality is wrong and immoral; yet because the government says it's legal, they're forced to acknowledge it.
 While we shouldn't condone persecution of gays, doesn't mean we can condone trampling on people's beliefs and values.


Works Cited
Sadowski, Dennis. "Religious Discrimination Occurs When Gays Are Allowed to Be Foster Parents." Gay Parenting. Ed. Beth Rosenthal. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Advance of Same-Sex Marriage Deepens Concern for Religious Liberty." 2011. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 13 Feb. 2013.