Being the Change I Wish to See

I am angry and sickened by Maine putting gay marriage rights on a ballot. They just became state number 31 to overturn equal marriage rights for same-sex couples in a popular vote, after those rights became law in that state.

How is it that gay civil rights are allowed to be put to a popular vote? How is this in any way legal? It is not legal. It is a direct violation of our Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. LGBT organizations are going about this issue completely the wrong way. This is a U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment issue.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.– 14th Amendment, United States Constitution

If our civil rights can be decided by popular vote, and not by our right to equal protection under the law, why not put anyone’s civil rights to a popular vote? Because it violates the U.S. Constitution.

Why don’t gay and lesbian couples have the same right to equal protection under the law guaranteed in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, including the equal right for two adults of the age of consent who are of the same gender to enter into the civil contract of marriage? Because we’re not really a country about equality in practice. We never have been.

We are a country full of bigots who will deny civil rights to any group we can until we are forced to stop denying those rights by the federal courts or by specific federal laws banning discrimination. When we obtain civil rights for one group, those rights do not carry over to the next group subject to the same discrimination (Gay marriage is similar to interracial marriage, see Loving v Virginia, 1967).

It seems in America no minority group has any civil rights until they are tested in the federal courts and the U.S. Congress. We’re supposed to be a country that guarantees equal rights to all, except we’re not. Any minority group discriminated against is automatically denied civil rights until the group wins a Supreme Court case protecting those rights, or Congress passes a law guaranteeing those rights. Our Constitution is essentially meaningless for minorities until it is enforced. Minorities must exercise their right to due process of law to receive the equal rights guaranteed in the same Constitutional Amendment.

Second Amendment rights don’t seem so tenuous. Anyone who carries a gun in accordance with the laws of the state in which they live cannot be stopped from carrying a gun. Gun laws are not discriminatory either. We saw that Constitutional Amendment exercised during the August town hall meetings on health care. Some who were licensed to carry guns, openly or concealed, brought them to town hall rallies and meetings, even one where President Obama was speaking. They were not permitted access to the President, but they were not removed from the rallies outside the buildings where the President was speaking. Why weren’t their guns taken away? Because of their 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bare arms. Why doesn’t the 14th Amendment have the same weight as the 2nd Amendment?

When are we going to start fighting for gay and lesbian equal rights on the civil rights battleground on which it belongs?

When are we going to demand our 14th Amendment rights the way others demand and exercise their 2nd Amendment rights?

Photo credit:  San Francisco Chronicle photo by Liz Mangelsdorf

Technorati Tags: Civil Rights and Justice, gay marriage, LGBT civil rights, U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment

written by Sherri Joubert \\ tags: Civil Rights and Justice, gay marriage, LGBT civil rights, U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment

If you haven’t read the previous posts I’ve written about war and peace, national security, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the atrocities that were committed under the Bush administration, please read through the categories “civil rights and justice”, “terrorism” and “war and peace”. This post is another piece of a huge chunk of history being made week-by-week as more information is uncovered about Bush administration policies; especially foreign policy, war policy, and blatant violations of the law and U.S. Constitution.

Tom Ridge was the first Secretary of Homeland Security under the Bush administration. His book

The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege…And How We Can Be Safe Again

was just published, and he’s already back-peddling from what he said about politicization of raising or lowering the security threat level. Why is he backing down from his statements that he thought raising the threat level may have been politically motivated? Did somebody get to him? He also claims he left DHS after Bush’s first term because that was the agreement he had originally made with the administration when he came on board. He doesn’t explain this in the book, and called his language a poor choice of words.

Please watch the following video of the first segment of his interview with Rachel Maddow on September 1 (13 minutes):

Tom Ridge wrote about the botched response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. He was no longer the Secretary and let the DHS have it in the book. (6 minute video, same interview):

I think the slip of saying “heart burn” instead of “heart break” is telling. The government seems to see the whole thing as a bad case of heart burn for them. His disgust over what happened because of the actions of an agency of which he was the former Secretary was evident.

His statements about FEMA and DHS not being responsible for not evacuating the poor, handicapped, and hospitals and nursing homes is false. As soon as the President declares an area a disaster the Stafford Act goes into effect, nationalizing everything in the disaster area, and that authority is retroactive 24 hours. So the federal government was fully responsible for the evacuation of New Orleans. Though the state can still act and Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin should have had plans in place to get those people out, the feds were in charge. State and local government are culpable, but FEMA and DHS were responsible.

Following is part 3 of the interview (10 minutes) with Former Governor Ridge debating Rachel about the decision for the Iraq War.

Does Mr. Ridge really buy it that we had national security reasons to go into Iraq? Does he really believe he would sell the Iraq war to the American people knowing then what he knows now? Does he really believe the whole thing hung on faulty intelligence? Does he believe it was not based on a highly politicized forgone conclusion that we were going into Iraq because the Administration already decided to do it? That they were combing the intelligence for any piece of evidence they could highlight to justify the war?

If he really believes what he’s saying, he is naive. I strongly believe the Cheney/Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq for their oil and to get rid of Saddam Hussein. It was clear to me that Colin Powell was struggling through his presentation to the U.N. to convince them that we had clear evidence of WMDs in Iraq. Secretary Powell’s body language and hesitated speech made it clear that he didn’t believe what he was saying.

I believe our former administration would and did commit our blood and treasure to invade Iraq because they wanted to. History will show this Iraq war was by choice, and we were acting imperialistically. It will not be looked on kindly in the future.

One of the things I truly love about The Rachel Maddow Show is that she does long-form interviews with guests. This interview took 31 minutes of actual content of the roughly 43 minutes of content produced for each one-hour show. You get 17 minutes of commercials per hour of broadcast time. Another thing I love so much about TRMS is Rachel has very civil, though sometimes heated, debates with guests with whom she disagrees or who disagree with her. These are the kinds of debates that should be going on in Congress over the issues our country needs to resolve.

On September 2, Rachel reflected and commented on her interview with Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge. Her reflections are about the big picture consequences of people like Tom Ridge not stepping up to the plate and distancing themselves from the Bush administration and the continued protagonism of the Bush/Cheney Doctrine (9 minutes):

I agree with Rachel. The failure of the GOP to admit regret and show any remorse or investigate the Bush administration’s leadership role and acknowledge that mistakes were made is the primary reason it no longer has credibility and won’t return to power for a long time, if ever. I am saddened that the two party system we rely on in American political discourse has completely broken down.

My questions are: Do we ever get the GOP back as a thinking and intelligent party that can once again take part in real debate of the facts of the issues facing us? Are we destined to remain a one-party system? Will another party rise up and become the other major political party in America?

The book is The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege…And How We Can Be Safe Again by Tom Ridge.

Technorati Tags: Dick Cheney, GOP disgrace, Iraq war, Planet Cheney, Rachel Maddow, The Rachel Maddow Show, The Test of Our Times, Tom Ridge

written by Sherri Joubert \\ tags: Dick Cheney, GOP disgrace, Iraq war, Planet Cheney, Rachel Maddow, The Rachel Maddow Show, The Test of Our Times, Tom Ridge