gay « State of Protest

Posts Tagged ‘gay’

Pot-ential?

Friday, June 12th, 2009

Despite Obama drug czar Gil Kerlikowske’s admonition that marijuana will still be federally outlawed regardless of the reduction of “war on drugs” rhetoric, there appears to be an increase in legal measures both at a state and federal level to legalize pot within the next few years, or at least severely reduce penalties for distribution.

According to SFGate, California’s budget crisis and increased public support are tipping the scales regarding pot legalization. The efforts include a July ballot measure in Oakland to create a cannabis tax category and hearings in the fall on a bill for decriminalization. The bill would allow limited cultivation, sales, and personal possession, but pro-decriminalization groups like TaxCannabis2010.org, estimate billions of dollars in sales tax revenue gain if marijuana is legalized.

Of course, even if California manages to legalize marijuana, the federal government still outlaws it. Activists hope that successful state initiatives will motivate change in the federal government, and the underlying states’ rights issue might set a tone conducive to the constitutional ideology of allowing states to grant greater freedoms to its citizens despite federal efforts to impose.

This dynamic is evident in the same-sex marriage issue today — some states are legalizing same-sex marriage while bills are being proposed in Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to outlaw it. The concept of infringing upon freedom was played out to great detriment when the federal government passed the prohibition amendment, The Noble Experiment manifest in the 18th Amendment, later repealing it with the 21st Amendment. Today, marijuana legalization opponents argue that states’ rights should trump the federal government in issues like gay marriage, abortion, and gun rights, while arguing that the federal government trumps state sovereignty with regard to personal use of marijuana.

While this interplay carries on, the sting of the federal prohibition against marijuana has already become less severe with Obama’s new pot dealer policy. Last March, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the feds would no longer raid medical marijuana dispensaries, and that states would be able to set their own marijuana laws. Regardless of such sentiment, the feds are still convicting and imprisoning dispensary owners.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, in June, a federal judge in Los Angeles handed over a year and a day prison sentence to a medical marijuana dispensary owner as an act of leniency, instead of the mandatory minimum five-year sentence for dealing in marijuana. This perpetuates the state-given rights versus federal prohibition issue, but it does establish some precedent and indication that, as Kerlikowske suggested, the tone of the drug war is being overtly and quickly lowered. What to watch for next is if California does legalize personal use, whether the federal government will conform to Holder’s assertion that states will be able to run their own show with regard to marijuana law.

Tags: activists, Amendment, California, Congress, Constitution, Drug Czar, drugs, Eric Holder, freedom, gay, Gil Kerlikowske, Government, Law, legal, marijuana, medical, Obama, prohibition, rights, same-sex marriage, states' rights, tax, war, War on Drugs
Posted in Activism, Government, Law, Morality | 1 Comment »

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Whine About It

Monday, June 8th, 2009

Says the Supreme Court.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which prohibits gays and lesbians¹ from serving in the U.S. military.

Thank God. I was really beginning to worry that the military was going to start redecorating foreign nations instead of slaughtering their denizens. Now I feel much more secure knowing that our borders are being protected by real men and nearly real women.²

No, no. Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t have a problem with “our troops.” I’m not an anti-patriot. I am a former Marine, remember? I have the utmost respect for the military establishment as it stands to protect my rights. However, I don’t respect the people who run it. Nor do I respect Commanders in Chief who wuss out at a great opportunity to eliminate this absolutely atrocious, discriminatory, and often fatally harmful policy that, among other antiquated and puritan laws, segregates and by definition punishes people for even the hint of being unlike the religiously accepted “norm.” The policy is brutal. It tells the world that we don’t respect homosexuals. That even though we humor them with regard to their fashion sense, their music, and, in some states, their desire to acquire officially recognized relationships, we don’t trust them with a rifle in a uniform. What the fuck?

When I was 17, I got myself emancipated after I graduated high school so that I could join the Marines. Something struck me as rather silly. When I marched across the parade deck at graduation, a full-fledged United States Marine, I was still 17. I wasn’t even the age of majority. I couldn’t buy a beer in 99% of the U.S. I couldn’t buy a pistol. I even doubted my ability to vote (it’s still 18, right?). Yet, my government gave me a loaded rifle and said, “Go fight for your nation.” And I did, proudly. But what kind of principles has a nation got that it would send its children into war, yet restrict them from drinking a beer? Heck, I could have seen bloody slaughter in combat and yet I wouldn’t have been allowed in a theater to see an NC-17 movie.

What I’m trying to say here on what might seem a tangent is that this nation’s puritan ideology is hampering our ability to think and act reasonably and rationally as a nation. It’s embarrassing, cruel, and pointless, and we need to quit it. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is just another in a series of such idiocy.

Honestly, what’s the difference between a gay and a lesbian? [<]
They’re still not allowed to go into combat, you know. [<]

Tags: commandment, establishment, gay, god, Government, Homosexuality, Law, lesbian, movie, puritan, rational, rights, school, vote, war
Posted in Government, Law, Religion, Sexuality | 6 Comments »

California Gay Marriage Ban Upheld

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009

Proposition 8 was upheld today by the California Supreme Court, keeping gay marriage banned. However, the court did allow the marriages that took place during the hiatus where the court previously allowed gay marriage and the passage of Prop 8 (about 18,000) to stand. Prop 8 was apparently not intended to be retroactive, so the court held that it was not. That slight mitigation has done nothing to quell the protests.

The apparent argument against Prop 8 was that it was such a drastic change to California’s constitution that it should have first been approved by the state legislature. The court, 6-1, disagreed.

Only one Justice, Carlos Moreno, dissented.

That’s another of my 2009 predictions in the bag (well, the first half of it, so far):

8. California courts will hold that all marriages that were held during the “gays are okay” window will maintain validity, despite the Prop 8 law against gay marriage. Complainants will lose their battle to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court because that Court will claim a lack of jurisdiction over a state matter (marriage). Gay marriage advocates will push to overturn Prop 8, and that movement will fail.

News articles with this story:

MSNBC

CNN

Yahoo

Tags: ban, banning, California, CNN, Constitution, court, gay, Law, marriage, MSNBC, prop 8, same-sex marriage, Supreme Court
Posted in Activism, Government, Law, Religion, Sexuality | 4 Comments »

The DC Civil War Has Begun

Friday, May 22nd, 2009

As predicted by Marion Barry, the first volley of attacks has occurred in the DC battle over gay marriage.

The attack comes in the form of a bill with 30 initial co-sponsors, notably including Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Dan Boren (D-Okla.), that directly opposes the DC Council decision earlier this month to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions. The “DC Defense of Marriage Act” states that for all legal purposes, “marriage” means the union of one man and one woman. If it passes, it will undo the DC Council’s decision as well as preempt any DC marriage equality bill.

Conservative opponents of gay marriage in the District continue to claim that the majority of DC residents oppose gay marriage. Religious and other leaders plan to petition the Council for a citywide referendum. Again, the suggestion is made that a black-majority, traditionally made up of notably religious Democrats, opposes gay marriage and any attempt to recognize same-sex marriage from other jurisdictions. Until the referendum shows otherwise, that appears to be the type of hype and speculation that keeps naysayers like Bishop Harry Jackson of Lanham’s Hope Christian Church in the media spotlight.

Not only is this a gay rights battle, but it is also an example of the states rights conflict that sets DC apart from every other jurisdiction because, despite having a council, it lacks its own legislative representation. In other words, regardless of a decision made by DC local rules, the federal Congress can intrude with its own agenda.

Put succinctly by Jeffrey Richardson, president of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, a group that represents gay residents of the District:

The disappointing thing is that here we are fighting to govern and pass our own laws in the District of Columbia, and Bishop Jackson chooses to run to Capitol Hill to stand with congressmen to impose their will upon the residents of the District of Columbia.¹

Of course, none of this will matter if Mr. Broun of Georgia, and company, get their way… (yes, unlikely in this Democrat-heavy Congress, but why again are we paying the salaries of people who waste time trying to pass such amendments when the economy is still tanking, people are still dying in distant and pointless wars, and so many other problems in this nation exist?)

May 7, 2009… Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. PITTS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. PENCE, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. TIAHRT, and Mr. ROGERS of Alabama) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage .

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article–

`Section 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.

`Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’.

The Washington Post [<]

Tags: Alabama, Amendment, America, Bishop, Capitol, Christianity, church, civilization, Congress, conservative, Constitution, DC, Democrat, economy, gay, Georgia, Government, Law, legal, marriage, Ohio, president, rights, same-sex marriage, Senator, Stein, war, Washington
Posted in Government, Law, Religion, Sexuality | 1 Comment »

Outing: Is sex off limits?

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

Recently, a Washington DC news anchor, Doug McKelway, while hosting a local interest news program called Let’s Talk Live, interviewed Mike Rogers about outing hypocritical politicians. The movie is Outrage¹ and Mike Rogers can be found at BlogActive.com. The interview made McKelway rather hot and bothered because he told Rogers that he would like to punch him in the face (more or less).

What exactly is the outrage here? Many, of which Mike Rogers is one, have dedicated themselves to unearthing the hypocrisy of politicians at any level who engage in homosexual behavior yet routinely vote against gay rights issues. Is outing the sexual behavior of a hypocritical public official the right thing to do?

I think that each of us has a right to our private lives. Sex is just one facet of things that should be private. If we don’t need to know the intimate conversations you have about politics or money, why do we need to know the intimate conversations regarding your sexual activity? Of course, if the activities in which you engage are illegal, then those activities become a matter of public record. The intimacy is over because the right to privacy ends.

However, any action that you take as a public official that is counter to the actions you take in your private life is a real problem. If you are Eliot Spitzer (former New York Governor, New York Attorney General, Manhattan District Attorney) and you prosecute prostitutes all the while secretly engaging the services of prostitutes in multiple jurisdictions, you are not only hypocritical but you are violating the law. You cannot be trusted. Eliot was outed, sexually speaking, but Eliot is not gay.

During the interview, McKelway asks Rogers about the outings of certain public officials like Larry Craig, who was infamously arrested in the bathroom of a Minneapolis airport while attempting to obtain sex from the person in the adjacent stall. Larry Craig, apparently, has also voted against gay rights issues on multiple occasions. Rogers also mentions Florida Governor Charlie Christ, who recently announced he will run in the US Senate race in 2010. While Larry Craig’s issues are rather obvious, Charlie Christ’s issues are not. Although rumors have spread for years about both gentlemen, Christ has yet to have anyone provide proof publicly of his non-heterosexual behavior. (I don’t follow the news stories on Christ, so I am more than willing to be corrected on the facts.)

If a public official, particularly one that holds an elected position, is engaging in personal behavior that is contradictory to his/her publicly stated positions or to his/her public actions (such as a voting record), then I think that the personal behavior should be known. If Larry Craig were to dress up in women’s clothing and hang out in gay bars in order to bag a guy at a DC hotel, I really don’t care. However, if Larry Craig takes a consistent public stance against people who otherwise engage in the same behavior he does, and he echoes that stance with a voting record to match, I think Larry Craig should be outed. I don’t mean to beat up on Larry Craig, poor guy, but he’s the most recent posterchild for hypocritical sexual activity.

The question becomes this: Why is sex off limits to outing? We often out people for financial misdeeds, such as Sam Donaldson for being against farm subsidies yet consistently accepting federal subsidies for his goat ranch (or whatever) in New Mexico. That is just one example of a hypocrisy uncovered, and that was a hypocrisy committed by a private individual functioning in a public capacity (news reporting), who also reports on the hypocrises of other public figures.

Did the message about our sexual lives being private become overdone? I don’t care what anyone does in their private lives, but if I am going to vote for you, or if you are appointed by someone else to act on my behalf, then your personal behavior better withstand the public scrutinty of a position you hold publicly. If you consistently think gays shouldn’t marry or adopt children or even be allowed to work anywhere, and you are consistently engaging in homosexual behavior, watch out! I am the public and I think I have the right to know.

Doug McKelway needs to get off the horse he’s riding because it’s way too high.

IMDb: Outrage [<]

Tags: attorney, Christ, Florida, gay, Governor, hypocrisy, Interview, Law, LDS, legal, Manhattan, Mexico, movie, proof, rights, sex, TV, vote, Washington
Posted in Activism, Government, Logic, Morality, Sexuality | No Comments »