Brewer Vetoes Anti-Gay Legislation

I’m pleased Governor Brewer chose to veto SB 1062 and recognize the pitfall it entailed for the people of Arizona. This legislation was not about “religious freedom” as supporters claimed, it was about legalizing discrimination against a portion of the Arizona populace. I think America has learned well no good comes from legislating and sanctioning discrimination against segments of its society based on ignorant beliefs.

A good day for Arizona.

Arizona Anti-Gay Business Law

Well, it’s been quite some time since I’ve posted here and it’s with a somewhat hot button issue: an anti-gay bill passed by the Arizona Legislature. The bill essentially says business owners may refuse service to gay customers based on their religious beliefs.

While I do believe business owners have the right to refuse service to a customer I also think anyone who would refuse a customer based on bigoted views (even when religiously based) is a fool for a business owner. Even more, how can you tell by looking at someone if they’re gay or not. Simple answer: you can’t.

The stupidity of bigotry aside, what is dangerous about this bill is that it codifies and legalizes discrimination based on a religious or moral belief. If it is allowed to discriminate against homosexuals for religious reasons, then how long will it be before others decide to claim their religion or morality as an acceptable excuse to reinstate a wide range of despicable hatred (racism, misogyny, and discrimination) as the norm.

My hope is that Governor Brewer will veto the law but it is difficult to say if she will do so. Some of her comments make it clear that she agrees that business should be allowed to deny service to customers as they see fit but also appears to believe that such practice should not be sanctioned by the state through law. I think she sees the inherent danger of the law as being see as state sanctioned discrimination.

We shall see soon what she will decide.

Commentary: Pope Denounces Gay Marriage In US

Pope Benedict Denounces Gay Marriage Efforts In U.S.

He added that the traditional family and marriage had to be “defended from every possible misrepresentation of their true nature” because, he said, whatever injured families injured society.

The Pope is too late on “defending” traditional family and marriage when you look at it from a historical perspective. A modern “traditional” family is not the traditional family of a century ago, let alone five hundred years ago and certainly not the same as the traditional family of the time of Jesus. For example, during my grandmother’s time it was not unusual for multi-generational homes to exist in which the grandparents, parents, and children to live together (sometimes including aunts and uncles and their families as well). My mother’s generation saw the creation of the so-called nuclear family (parents and children) which also started a trend of divorces by those who realized they didn’t have to remain in horrible marriages. By my generation we’ve reached the modern family which includes the gamut of multi-generational homes to single parent households to gay couples. In other words, traditional is a meaningless term with respect to family.

As for the “true nature” of traditional marriage that’s simple: marriage was created as a means of enslaving women to men, of treating women as property by trading daughters off. Worse, being punished for not being “wifely” or forced into a marriage with their rapist as the Bible dictates. Do you honestly think independently minded women today would willingly walk back into being forced into arranged marriages and denied their equal rights? It’s only been a relatively new concept that marriage is a partnership between a man and woman, and really only the last one hundred years that women have started to achieve of semblance of equality to men in Western European, Christian based cultures. Even that appearance of equality is still lacking in many areas such as career opportunities, wages, politics, education, and so forth.

So the Pope’s argument against gay marriage is a weak position and one that likely would have never arisen if not for the bigotry of the religious community against their fellow human beings. I remember in my teens and you adult life homosexuals simply asked for civil unions so that homosexual couples could receive the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. When they were vehemently denied such equality under the law, that is when I first heard them start using the term marriage which has now inevitably led to this notion that gays somehow “threaten” heterosexual marriages and families.

One would think the Pope has better things to worry about than homosexuals, such as the pedophile priests and allegations of the rape of nuns, justifying the vast wealth of the Vatican when compared to the poor and impoverished of the Catholic masses, and championing Christians facing persecution around the world for their faith.

Obama’s Aunt, DADT and DREAM Act

Zeituni Onyango, Obama’s Aunt, Says US Obligated to Grant Her Citizenship

“If I come as an immigrant, you have the obligation to make me a citizen,” Onyango, 58, told Boston’s WBZ news.

No, we have no obligation to make any immigrant, legal or otherwise, a citizen.

It is this entitlement attitude that pisses me off the most about some illegal aliens (and Americans). The United States doesn’t owe anyone coming to this country citizenship, especially an illegal immigrant. To do so mocks the efforts of millions of legal immigrants who worked hard to earn their citizenship. You don’t get citizenship because your too lazy to go back to your native country and now live on the government dole. All she did was deny a deserving American or legal immigrant resident assistance they may have needed it.

Republicans Block Repeal of Military ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy

GOP senators said two controversial additions — language to begin the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military and a last-minute amendment based on the DREAM Act to give young illegal immigrants a path to citizenship if they complete two years of college or serve that long in the military — made the bill impossible to support.

I don’t agree with those who voted against the Defense Department bill because they wish to deny gays the simple right of defending the country they love. I do agree with those who opposed it based on the blatantly amnesty driven DREAM Act. McCain is correct in saying both were cynical acts done to curry favor with certain voting groups. As for Obama, if he truly supported gays serving openly in the military he’s simply used his authority as Commander in Chief to make it so. It worked for Clinton and his halfhearted DADT policy.

By the way, these morons do know we have more important things to worry about than tacking on politically divisive issues onto defense bills, right? But the issue of congress tieing loosely related (and sometime non-related) items into a bill is another problem in Congress that needs to be addressed and eliminated.

Gen Sheehan on DADT

Gen. John Sheehan says Gays Weakened Dutch Military in Bosnia – AOL News

The stupid, it burns!

It amazes me that this retired General ignores the simple facts regarding the Dutch failure in Bosnia (unworkable operational orders, lack of training, light weaponry and limited equipment) to push his own bigotry. Does he really believe a small number of homosexuals serving their military weaken a military? Blaming the soldiers is the thinking of officers and leaders who fail to admit to their own incompetence.

Woe to the Republic 2: F-22 and Hate Crimes

Many know that I am for gay rights and legal protections for all who face discrimination and violent behavior for not fitting into the assorted definitions of  normalcy. Personally I wish there were no hate crime provisions but understand the reasoning behind them. But I am equally outraged at a defense appropriations bill being hijacked to push a social agenda, in this case a hate crimes bill (the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act) to assist in protecting homosexuals has been egregiously added as part of a defense bill funding the F-22. The Matthew Shepard Act in and of itself is worthy, so why potentially hold military funding hostage to it.

This tacking on unrelated items to bills has been a major problem in our government for years and should be banned in my opinion. If a piece of legislation is truly worthy then there is no need to attach it to something else in the hopes of either a) sneaking it through or b) intentionally blackmailing the Congress into the approving it at the risk of critical legislation failing to pass.

This practice of disgusting and unethical. Legislation should be put in place stating that any bill and it’s attached riders must be directly and appropriately related in order to be considered valid. This corruption of the legislative process must end.

Woe to the Republic

Dan Choi

As those who have been following the issue of the military’s misguided “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy knows that today Lt. Dan Choi lost his first DADT battle, but vowed to keep fighting. I still find it incomprehensible that the U.S. government and elements in the military somehow think our country’s best interests are served in discriminating against otherwise qualified and much needed personnell based solely on their gender preference. Should not the ability to serve our nation be solely based on one’s capabilities rather than socio-political dogma?

The Obama administration has merely sidestepped the issue (as I knew he would always do) while SecDef Gates softened his public approach (only because the WH is using him as a scape goat to cover their inactivity). Congress abets the administration’s astounding silence by intentionally ignoring the issue as well. Perhaps both pray that it will go away while our military personnel are left wallowing in a muddled policy. The administration’s excuse for this behavior is supposedly to allow time to convince old guard military top relent. President Obama forgets that he is the Commader in Chief and like President Truman when integrating the military could simply order DADT out of existence. Unfortunately Obama is too fearful of taking a stand on anything. Truman faced massive opposition to racially integrating the military but did it anyway.

As those I know in the military like to say: Mission first.

The net effect is the government has gone from always discrimnating against homosexuals in the military to just sometimes. How very progressive. /sarcasm

As usual I encourage all people to contact their Representatives and Senators to tell them what you want on all issues from DADT to the environment to taxes and beyond. Look beyond partisan politics and beyond party to what is best for all Americans within the guidelines of our Constitutional government.