Archives for posts with tag: equality

Every now and again, God shows his face. A couple got married in a state that allows gays to marry, came back to Ohio, got discriminated against, sued the state, and won. Little Johnnie Kasich and his cronies just got bitch-slapped.

A federal judge in Ohio ordered state officials Monday to recognize the marriage of two men that was performed in Maryland on the death certificate of an Ohio resident in hospice care who the judge says “is certain to die soon.”
“The end result here and now is that the local Ohio Registrar of death certificates is hereby ORDERED not to accept for recording a death certificate for John Arthur that does not record Mr. Arthur’s status at death as ‘married’ and James Obergefell as his ‘surviving spouse,’” Judge Timothy Black wrote in granting the couple a temporary restraining order Monday.
“By treating lawful same sex marriages differently than it treats lawful opposite sex
marriages,” the judge concluded, Ohio’s 2004 constitutional amendment banning recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages and Ohio’s statute addressing the same issue “likely violate the United States Constitution.”

In this one-party Hell of a state, it is good to see the rule of law prevail over the rules of partisan politics, bigotry and willful ignorance. It doesn’t happen often, so these moments are doubly precious.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

The plaintiff in this week’s DOMA (“Defense Of Marriage Act”) case that hits the Supremes this Wednesday had $363,000.00  stolen from her by the government because, and only because, she was gay.  No other reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

You see, Ms. Windsor (an early computer scientist with IBM) and her partner got married legally, and their marriage was recognized by the State of New York. But the Feds don’t recognize such unions, and after her wife died, she was obliged to fork over a third of a million dollars that she would not have had to pay had she been a straight married woman. Think of it as a “Gay Tax”.

If you are a Republican who believes in lower taxes and smaller government, you cannot also support DOMA, because it imposes unjust taxes on certain citizens, and is a result of Big Brother governmental intrusion into our private lives. If you are a Repub, therefore, and  support DOMA, you’re a hateful, hypocritical bigot,

If you are a Christian whose church has tax-empt status  and you  support DOMA, you’re a hateful, hypocritical bigot who is making someone else pay your bills for you. Look up “usury” in the Bible and see what it says.

If you are a Libertarian and  support DOMA, you’re a  hateful, hugely hypocritical bigot.

If you are black and support DOMA, you’re you’re a  hateful, hugely hypocritical bigot who has no memory of anything that happened prior to this century. Read up on the Civil RIghts struggle, slavery, and such.

No matter who you are in our country, this writer is pretty sure you don’t like the idea of Uncle Sam jacking people out of thousands of dollars. Unless, of course, they are part of a group that you don’t like, in which case you’re OK with it.

Which makes you a hateful, hypocritical bigot.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Yes, yes, yes, sorry, but there’s another one. We’ve had The War on Poverty, The War on Cancer, The War on Women, jeez, can’t we lay this meme down and waterboard it to death? Nope, folks, not yet. This war is bigger than most, and yet has been mostly ignored by the media. But it has drastic and far-reaching consequences for us all.

The right to vote has been a matter of contention since the founding of the nation – there have always been those who favored a more inclusive policy and those who wanted to make it more exclusive.  Today it is the Republicans who favor fewer voters and Democrats who favor more voters, and they apply those philosophies in their daily activities.

Vote purges: Republicans favor this, because it limits participation without getting in people’s faces. It usually spun as “making sure (felons, illegal aliens, or whoever is being demonized at the moment)” don’t vote illegally”. Democrats tend not to favor this, because it limits participation by those who move frequently, have fewer resources, etc. Plus, it wastes time and money that Dems would rather use for things Dems like.

Voter ID laws: Dems HATE these, at least partly because part of their core constituency (poor folk, minorities, the elderly) don’t always have a photo ID, or the means to get one. Repubs love Voter ID laws, for the exact same reason.

Redistricting: This one often gets missed, but is pretty huge. By drawing districts to favor one party over another, key groups of voters find their influence diminished, their polling places made less accessible, and sometimes subjected to so much confusion that they cannot cast a vote at all.

“Cost Savings” and “Efficiency”: These get pulled out in order to save money for state and local gummints. These also tend to create the greatest problems for elderly and poor voters, who need the “expensive” early/absentee/accessible voting options in order to be able to, well, cast a feckin’ ballot. Mostly done on purpose by Repubs, sometimes done mistakenly by Dems.

The key point: whether you lean Repub or Dem, the Dems are on your side in this one area at least: they want you to be able to vote if you want to.  This writer suggests you do so. As Pogo once said, “I want you all to get on out there and VOTE!” When asked for whom to vote, Pogo shrugged that off.  “As long as you vote, you can’t go wrong.” Words to live by, and reason enough to make sure no one takes away your right to do so.

Mr. B & C

When the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion, they did not rule on the morality, ethics, religious value or rightness/wrongness of abortion: in fact, the ruling wasn’t entirely about abortion at all. Let’s all take a moment to put our heads back together, since many of yours have likely just exploded.

All crania super-glued back together now? Excellent. Lots of folks think of a woman’s right to choose as it has been defined and discussed by TV preachers and glory-hound politicians, many of whom know nothing about the actual ruling (or pretend not to): they frame it as a Godless, liberal, genocidal baby-killing spree imposed upon the Godly American majority by a Satanic Supreme Court, or some similar load of twaddle.

In reality, the ruling hinged upon something far more basic: men cannot get pregnant, and there is no Constitutional way to force them to be accountable towards the women they impregnate or the children they help to create. As the late-night infomercial boyos like to say, “it’s just that simple”.

What the Supremes found was this: lots of men lie to women in order to get laid. Wow, who’d a thunk that? And if they get a woman pregnant, they likewise lie about taking care of the woman and child (or just take off). This leaves the woman completely and totally responsible for the consequences of an act that two people consented to (rape and other sex crimes that result in pregnancy are for another post), because the baby is inside her and she pretty much has to deal with that reality. Meanwhile the man can either be responsible, or not.

In nature, men can choose whether or not to deal with a pregnancy they help create, and women cannot (that’s the real meaning behind “pro-choice”). Simply put: Nature has created an inequality when it comes to pregnancy. The Supreme Court recognized this, and THAT is where Roe V. Wade came from. Giving women the same amount of choice as men. Equality, in other words. You know, that teenytiny little concept that our whole nation was founded upon? Yeah, that equality.

Yes, I hear you say, we have court-ordered child support: surely that addresses the situation? It might help, if there were any way to guarantee such payments: in reality, many men evade such court orders or simply don’t pay up when they are ordered to. Nor does child support cover all of the burdens of single parenthood.

Mr.  Blunt and Cranky has imagined lots of fun ways to make men deal with their sexual behavior: surgical insertion of bowling balls into their intestines so that they can feel a bit of the pregnancy experience; forced labor on chain-gangs for 18 years with all proceeds going to the mother and child; all sorts of amusing notions, none of which, alas, are the least bit constitutional.

(One should notice that almost none of the recent restrictive state and local laws regarding abortion say thing one about making men deal with their share of responsibility. These laws take away the rights of women while doing nothing to address the fundamental inequity that the Supreme Court sought to rectify. Small wonder, since most of these bills were written by male politicians, who are evidently lying, thoughtless, irresponsible dicks, taking care of themselves and their like-minded brethren.)

When and if a way can be found to make 100 percent of men as 100 percent responsible as women for the children they create, perhaps Roe V Wade might no longer be necessary. Until then, while so many men remain a**holes about sex and reproduction, it is indispensable to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of women (remember them? They’re the majority of Americans).

Mr. B & C

PS: Here’s what 100% prohibition of abortion looks like: http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/18/world/americas/dominican-republic-abortion/index.html