The United States Supreme Court has several important rulings to announce overt the next several weeks. Voting Rights, Gay Marriage, Affirmative Action and Gene Patents are all issues that the Court will be announcing its ruling on before its Summer recess, which arrives in the last week of June.
Voting Rights: The Supreme Court is deciding on the constitutionality of a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that requires some localities, particularly in the South, to get approval in advance from Washington for changes to their voting laws. At arguments in February, conservative justices suggested the provision had outlived its relevance and was imposing undue burdens on these localities. Supporters say the law is still needed to ensure voting rights. The case is Shelby County v. Holder.WSJ coverage is here.
Affirmative Action: More than seven months have passed since the justices heard arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, challenging the university’s consideration of race in an admissions formula. Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed skepticismabout the formula, and the court’s five conservatives appeared headed toward a major ruling that would curb racial preferences in university admissions. Whatever the outcome, it appears the majority and dissenters are using all their available time to polish their opinions on this hot-button issue.
Gay marriage: In late March the court heard arguments on whether to nullify a federal law that bars recognition of gay marriage and a California law banning gay marriage in the state. In the California case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, the justices appeared divided and at times almost regretful they waded into the issue amid fast-changing public opinion. They also questioned whether the case over the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, U.S. v. Windsor, belonged before them, raising the possibility of a ruling that would focus on procedure rather than fundamental rights, as Jess Bravin wrote in his analysis of the arguments.
Gene patents: The justices will decide whether human genes can be patented. At arguments in April, justices were skeptical that merely extracting DNA from a body would make the product a patentable invention, as asserted by patent holder Myriad Genetics Inc. Myriad sells a test for its patented breast-cancer genes. Actress Angelina Jolie recently made news after getting a mastectomy based on her test results.
My thoughts today are on the recent problem at the Research Medical Center, a hospital in Kansas City, Missouri where a duly designated same sex partner, Roger Gorley, was denied access to his loved one "Alan" due to other family members and a less than impressive performance by some hospital staff. You can read accounts and related articles on this story here, here, here and here.
I'll start out by saying that I don't downplay the fact that Roger Gorley may have behaved in a fashion that was inappropriate at the hospital. Getting loud, becoming "disruptive and belligerent" and ultimately arrested isn't good form almost anywhere. Exhibiting those qualities during a time where a problem needed to be resolved, not complicated or muddied with a distraction isn't good judgement ever. Most of us understand that when the shit's going down, you're much better served if you keep your cool, stay respectful and take the high road. Its a much more productive way to act.
If I'm in that situation, and the reasonable approach hadn't worked, would I have gotten upset, raised my voice, appeared agitated? Quite possibly, yes. Absolutely. What kind of spouse just walks away calm as a cucumber under those circumstances?
To try and understand what Mr. Gormley felt that day is so hard for me. Any time that my wife Patty and I have needed medical attention, small or otherwise, we've always been together. Husband and wife, devoted partners, etc. It's how want and expect it to always be. Perhaps we're both over dramatic but there's always those little thoughts in the back of your head like "what if something goes wrong today?", "what if the anesthesia causes a bad reaction?" "What if, what, what if?" We're probably not unique among couples that way. Its mostly well contained fears but we are both in our fifties and at some point in the next 15 years or so one of us is likely to get some bad news in one form or another. We don't take much for granted.
I struggle to even comprehend what my reaction would be if suddenly my ability and right to be at her side and participate in her health care decisions was not just challenged, but over-ridden by an outsider. Its incomprehensible to me. We've lived together as man and wife for over 20 years, and we do so much together. We coordinate our schedules, parenting strategies, shopping lists, dinner plans, who's picking up milk and dog food today and who's cleaning the bathroom this weekend. And a hundred other things.
We live a perfectly normal life just like thousands of other couples do across the country.
It appears Roger and Alan had everything set up as officially as Missouri law permits. They are set up as each other's Power of Attorney for all health care decisions. No where are Alan's other family member's, who have not been involved in his health care decisions for 20 years, granted any authorization to know, be informed, consult, let alone make any decisions about his health or any treatments. Alan, as we all do, under the HIPAA law, has the right to privacy and choice when it comes to his private medical matters. Roger and Allan were "married" five years ago and while Missouri doesn't recognize their marriage or even civil unions, Missouri does recognize state laws regarding power of attorney and the federal HIPAA regulations.
Clearly something went wrong that day. The timeline is laid out here by Mr. Gorley's daughter, Amanda in some detail. Why was Alan's brother and sister waiting for them at the house that day and why were the paramedics and police with them? Everything after that just seemed to spiral downward.
Here's a video with both Roger and Alan's brother Lee...
There's probably some things we don't know yet on this. But to step away from the details of this specific situation, let's focus on the larger, grander issue. Equal rights for same sex partners. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution I believe addresses this over-arching issue:
(The text of the amendment)
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.
There is, before we even get into the meaning of words, something that needs to be addressed in terms of how to read or "interpret" this amendment. Some say we should take the words literally, while others suggest its best to consider the time and place that we apply these words as the Constitution to some is a "living and breathing" document.
I will defer to those 2nd Amendment advocates who suggest we needn't and shouldn't interpret what the words mean, just follow them.
There's no questions that Roger and Alan and countless of other LGBT people who wish to marry the loved one of their choice are citizens of the United States and therefor are entitled as their birthright to all the privileges and protections of the Constitution. This is covered in the first one and a half lines of the amendment. Now we get to the part where is forbids any State to deprive any person of life, liberty or property (then changed to read pursuit of happiness) without due process of law not deny anyone equal protection under the law.
I've read it a hundred times and "except gay people" just isn't there.
Its never going to be there, is it?
Nope...
One of the things that's admirable about how our country was constructed was that everyone has a fair shot and equal footing/treatment at least in some theoretical way. We know equality doesn't exist across our population. Blacks, women, immigrants, the old, the disabled, non Christians, etc. all can point to a dark time in their history as a sub-group and tell some horrific tales of discrimination. We are getting better. We're trying. We need to try harder.
I hope before I leave this life, we've agreed as a country and as a people to apply the laws and founding principles toward everyone regardless of color, faith, orientation, health etc. It, to me, seems like this shouldn't be so hard, so scary to get right.
1) Hillary Clinton is very likely to run for President in 2016. The Democratic field she'd have to conquer isn't a very impressive or deep one at this time and I suspect it would be a short primary season for her. Her biggest obstacle is Joe Biden, and unless some controversy arises with Mrs. Clinton, (Bhengazi?) that can't be managed, I don't see him getting in her way.
2) I get the problem for congressmen and women when it comes to equal rights. In many places, their constituents don't really want equal rights. Yes, often these are the same people yammering about the destruction of the Constitution under this President and his Administration, but too often when the rubber hits the road, people don't really want equal rights for everyone. Many strong religion voices in our country get upset at the (mostly imagined) idea of the war on Christians. Ask these folks how they feel about Islam being taught in our schools and you'll see what I mean.
3) Several politicians have stepped up and proudly announced, like President Obama did before the election, that after much personal reflection they now feel all Americans deserve a fully recognized and equal right to marry the person of their choice. I didn't get too misty-eyed when Obama finally got around to it and I'm not getting too excited now. The list of those whose "evolution" had come out in favor of same sex marriage grows by the day. Almost always its a matter of political expediency. The 14th Amendment doesn't leave out certain groups, it says no person shall be denied equal protection under the law. Period.
4) Who can miss the irony that so many pro-gun folks who can recite the 2nd Amendment by memory but poo-poo any attempt to "interpret" its meaning consider those who want to apply the same standard to the 14th as some clear cut sign of lunacy? Hypocrites.
5) I wish the pro gun-reform folks who like to post pictures referring to the Newtown, CT shooting would stop. While it does play on our emotions when you do that, its not going to help the reform effort at all. Realize this. Massacres like that are almost impossible to prevent. Crazy people do crazy things. Hopefully, we get better as a society at stopping them. Any serious gun policy won't aim (sorry) at the random, insane acts that happen infrequently. Rather, it would attempt to get a better grip on controlling the manufacturing (smaller clips/magazines), better regulating all sales and creating an improved background check system. We should control all the guns in the country at least as well as we control our cars and trucks.
6) We all should be asking ourselves why it took a string of senseless shootings of mostly white people to get (hopefully meaningful) gun reform on the table again. While the murder of 20 small kids turns anyone's stomach, the overall numbers are striking:
April 1999: Columbine shooting - 13 dead
April 2007: Virginia Tech shooting - 32 dead
April 2009: Binghamton, NY office shooting - 13 dead
November 2009: Ft. Hood shooting - 13 dead
January 2011: Tuscon shopping ctr. shooting - 6 dead
April 2012: Oikos University - 7 dead
July 2012: Aurora Theater - 12 dead
August 2012: Wisconsin Sikh shooting - 6 dead
December 2012: Newtown school shooting - 26 dead
...Nine gun related attacks resulting in 128 deaths and even more injuries. While there was some increase in the general discussion on the need to improve gun laws in this country, it wasn't until our President wept openly before cameras the afternoon of the Newtown shootings that we collectively sat up and took notice.
2011 Chicago gun related deaths: 433
2012 Chicago gun related deaths: 535
TWO YEAR TOTAL: 968 deaths...
I'm not suggesting this is apples and apples, but my point stands. We mostly stand by quietly on the urban area shootings day after day while the body count increases well into the hundreds, but finally dub it a call to action when 20 children are wiped out in under ten minutes in the suburbs. Maybe its the sheer number we saw in Newtown or Tuscon, Ft. Hood, etc. but numbers equal to those or higher occur on average every week in Chicago.
We as a country don't seem to especially care if a group of us get gunned down from time to time. If its a group of small school children, then yes, we'll emote for a while and perhaps pass some mild changes into law. If its 6-10 blacks or latino folks losing their lives to a bullet every week in our cities, we really, as proved by our collective actions, don't give a shit...
7) President Obama continues to have a tin ear when it comes to avoiding unnecessary wrong notes. While the Country is coping with the effects of the sequestration, a by product of the inability of both Congress and the White House to avoid its across the board spending cuts, the first family is taking flak for its vacations. Never mind that Mr. Obama has taken less time off than his predecessor did, never mind that the Obama's pay for everything out of their own pocket except for security above and beyond the allocated $50,000 given to them for "expenses" and the $100,000 provided for travel. While we can dismiss the asshats like Sean Hannity for his role in this, I again wonder why this administration continues to throw these softballs right down the middle for his opponents to smack out of the park? This is not a first family that spends lavishly or excessively as some would suggest, but the appearance is damning just the same. The President's announcement this week that he will give back 5% of his salary to stand with those who have been hurt by the sequestration is a cheap stunt. Mr. Obama has a net worth of over 11 Million dollars and a fortune beyond anything I can imagine waiting for him once he steps away from public service. He's not going to miss the 20K he'll give back. Its this sort of "out of touch-ness" that pisses people off.
I have supported this President and usually defend his actions. Perhaps he has decided he has no more elections to worry about, that no matter what he does or doesn't do he will be criticized by his detractors, etc. so damn the torpedoes, the Obama's will do what they want without regard to public perception. For all the offensive crap they've had to absorb as a family, perhaps he's entitled. But it comes at a cost.
As one of the giants in the social media world, when something happens socially of import in America, it usually finds its way to the pages of facebook. The events at the Supreme Court last week certainly effected changes of sorts to millions of facebook users, including yours truly, who changed their profile picture as a modest show of support.
Apparently, Facebook tracks this stuff and reports that last Tuesday, 2.7 Million people more than usual, changed their profile pic. That seems like a lot to me.
Here is a image that shows where the profile changes were geographically by county:
(Click on image to enlarge it....)
The darker areas represent a higher number of those people who changed. Lighter areas showed locations where there were fewer profile pictures changed.
Facebook also has information available on when the changes were noticed by the researchers at facebook, as well as the demographics involved. Generally speaking, most of those who changed their pic were 30-somethings, with a very slight higher percent of women rather than males making the change.
For as far back as I can remember, there has been a movement towards equal rights in the United States. I was born in 1960 in Pittsburgh, PA and grew up in the suburbs about 20 miles away. There were black kids on my street, in my school, in my class and in my church. There were pretty similar to me except for the obvious physical differences. Mostly, I never understood what the big deal regarding equal rights was about until I got older, learned some history and understood. 7 year old kids don't think on these things. Things are better now than they were then, and I suspect will continue to improve over time.
I see a similar curve for the LGBT community, although a much steeper one. Progress seems to be coming at a faster pace than it did for Blacks. Ten years no States permitted same-sex marriage. Currently, seven States have made it legal, with three more recognizing it. Twelve more recognize same sex civil unions. Public opinion, which was at just 25% approval for same sex marriage back in 1996, has basically doubled in less than twenty years. President Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is currently not even being enforced by President Obama's Justice Department. We know where this winds up. In my children's lifetime, this Country will see widespread equal rights for the LGBT community when it comes to marriage benefits.
Both groups have been in pursuit of equal rights. Not special rights. Equal rights are guaranteed to each of us by the Constitution. White, Black, Asian, Straight, Gay, Bi, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, etc. Everybody in America has a birthright of equal rights.
This week the comments from Dan Cathy, President of the fast food chain "Chick-fil-A" regarding his traditional Christian views that marriage is between one man and one woman drew fire from many on the left. Here's exactly what Mr. Cathy said:
"We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives."
A growing list of Democratic politicians have gone public with condemnations of Cathy's remarks and some have pronounced his company "not welcome" in their cities. The mayors of Boston, Chicago and San Francisco have sent a message loud and clear to the company that new locations planned by Chik-fil-A should look elsewhere.
I fully appreciate the irresistible temptation to pander whenever possible to constituents, but Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago's Mayor Rahm Emanuel are way wrong on their response to this issue. Totally wrong to threaten punishment to a business because of its Christian viewpoint. As it would be to a Muslim business or a Jewish business or an Atheist business.
I don't personally agree with Mr. Cathy's definition of a family. Not at all. However, when government starts to pick winners and losers in this area, its a bad, bad idea. Its hypocritical. How high and fast would the Left jump if some back woods mayor in America's southwest decided "we ain't having no gays running a business in our town." The left wing media would lose their minds and initiate a bloodbath.
There are no charges or allegations that any discrimination has taken place in any of Chick-fil-A's store's. None whatsoever. If there were wrongdoings, then there are remedies via the legal system to punish them. That's not the case here, is it? These people are entitled to believe in whatever form of religion suits their fancy.
For all the words over the years about "equal rights" its disappointing to see a few of our largest cities leaders lose sight of this fundamental principle. Equal rights isn't just for things you believe in, its also for things you may not believe in as well. If you're truly an advocate of equal rights, then you should defend unconditionally Mr. Cathy's right to say what he said. If you don't-you've gotten caught up in the moment and the emotion and opted to score cheap political points with a group of voters who's vote you likely already had. So, you probably gained very little and looked foolish in the process. Nice job...
The public will express their opinion of Cathy's remarks with their wallets and pocketbooks. Frankly, I'd never heard of this gentleman before this story broke but now with the predictable pushback from Conservatives, the bluster & blunders from a few will likely result in a increase in revenues for the chain, at least in the short term. So, while there might be a case to make for the stimulative economic effects, its hardly what they had in mind. Both Menino and Emanuel have walked back their comments acknowledging that do deny Chick-fil-A business permits would be illegal and un-Constitutional.
Mind you, I don't think the hypocrisy is limited to those who fowled this up on the left. With the outpouring of support from the conservative religious community, I have to wonder where was this support when it came to the 911 Mosque in New York City a few years ago? The very public concern for religion's "equal rights" seemed to be lost in the noise and pandering of that time as well, didn't it?
Sometimes its best just to leave a thing alone. Leave it be and it usually goes (mostly) unnoticed. Want it to flare up into something it otherwise would not have? Try and ban it. There's an old Billy Joel story about his song "Only the Good Die Young." The song had been floundering on the pop charts in the late 70's when one day the radio station at Seton Hall University in New Jersey, a catholic institution, banned it. Then the archdiocese of St. Louis banned it also. Then Boston banned it. The record became a big hit because somebody in authority tried to stop people from enjoying it. When preparing to release his next album, Joel wrote letters to these archbishops and Seton Hall asking them to please ban this one too...
Last week, President Barack Obama grabbed headlines when he sat down with ABC's Robin Roberts and finally revealed his personal opinions on same sex marriage (ssm). Not surprisingly, he feels it should be legal, but stopped well short of saying there should be a Federal Law protecting that right. Rather, he mostly punted it back to the States as fundamentally a states rights issue. Obama did state clearly he thinks there should NOT be a Federal law prohibiting ssm anywhere in the United States. The far Left rejoiced and campaign contributions spiked up quickly after the interview, which was to be expected. Also to be expected was outrage from the far Right and they didn't disappoint.
Its not news Obama is for SSM...
Its not news the Left is pleased...
Its not news the Right is not...
What is a bit of a news was the timing of the comments, which were reportedly already prepared but not scheduled for released until later this year, closer to the Democratic convention. Whether it was the comments from Vice President Biden or Sec. of Education Duncan that changed the time frame, I don't know. Most of the reporting I've heard was that this was not the intended plan for President Obama's long awaited comments on SSM.
Something's been bothering me about this since he sat down with ABC and shared his "evolution" with the rest of us. I couldn't quite put my finger on it.
And then I watched this six and a half minute video:
I'm wondering why a Constitutional lawyer and Professor wouldn't have used the same argument as Rev. Barber did? It would've made perfect sense for President Obama to come out and say "Robin-I support gay marriage and while I can respect how different people may feel differently on this issue, the Constitution doesn't give the States the right to pick and choose which parts they want to observe and which parts they don't. Certainly, we all agree that Churches will decide for themselves how they want to handle this issue and the Government needn't involve itself with that whatsoever."
That would have been the change I was hoping for...
"States rights" has been thrown around so much over the last few years its almost become a punchline. Its a favorite word of Conservatives, as they ride the energy of the Tea Party uprising a few years ago, to use as they beat the drum endlessly on how terrible and over-reaching the Federal Government has become. For President Obama to use that as a main component in his comments sounded nice. I even heard some RW talk radio hosts, who clearly dislike Mr. Obama, say the next day that on this particular point, the President finally got something right.
Hurrah, Mr. President. Hurrah...
Coming out in favor of gay marriage won't help Obama come next November very much. The people who agree/disagree with him on this issue had made up their minds a long time ago on who they'll vote for in seven months. Its difficult for me to think that many undecided/independents said after his comments, "NOW, I know who I'm voting for!!!" Frankly, the issue of ssm is a minor one when it comes to a Presidential election. Pocketbook issues will be the focus this time, without a doubt.
I fully expect in time, a few decades worth, this issue will be moot. Its pretty clear the Constitution doesn't discriminate against gays when it comes to marriage. The document guarantees every citizen "equal rights." To suggest a State could formally and officially discriminate against one sub-set of citizenry in favor of another is incomprehensible. North Carolina, for example, can outlaw all the gay marriage, civil unions, etc. they want, but when the dust settles, the Constitution will carry the day and protect the rights of these Americans.
Its not just disappointing that the President, who has studied and taught Constitutional Law, failed to hold that document up as the standard on this issue, its also quite telling that so many on the Right didn't either. I've lost track of how many times the founding fathers and their sacred documents have been tossed in to the rhetoric of the last few years to buttress this point or that. I'm just stunned, stunned I say that Conservatives didn't make the case for Constitution prevailing when the President didn't.
It really shows me something when an issue actually calls for the intervention and application of the Constitution, but our President nor his loyal opposition have the guts to use it correctly.
In the end of the day, I don't think President Obama's comments the other day will mean much of anything other than a temporary spike in his fundraising. In fact, I think it hurts him more than it helps him with the undecided voters who will decide the next election. This was a missed opportunity for him to be the guy protecting the Constitution for once and instead, he passed the buck...for now...to the States.
If I was a gay man, I'd be thinking its about time Obama spoke clearly on his feelings about ssm, but was that the best you could do?
Back in 1994, Mitt Romney was running for Senator in Massachusetts. His opponent was Ted Kennedy a Democrat. Romney wrote a letter to a group called the Log Cabin Republicans, which is a group of conservative Republican gay voters. In this letter, he asked for the group's official endorsement. The text of his letter shows a position quite different from where he stands now on the issue of gay rights.
The full text of the letter: (Boldface mine...)
October 6, 1994
To the Members of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts:
I am writing to thank the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts for the advice and support you have given to me during my campaign for the U.S. Senate and to seek the Club’s formal endorsement of my election. The Log Cabin Club has played a vital role in reinvigorating the Republican Party in Massachusetts and your endorsement is important to me because it will provide further confirmation that my campaign and approach to government is consistent with the values and vision of government we share.
I am pleased to have had an opportunity to talk with you and to meet many of you personally during your September meeting. I learned a great deal from those discussions and the many thoughtful questions you posed. As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for Americas gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.
I am not unaware of my opponent’s considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.
We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and the bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.
As we begin the final phase of this campaign, I need your support more than ever. By working together, we will achieve the goals we share for Massachusetts and our Nation.
Sincerely, W. Mitt Romney
Well...
He closed his letter "Sincerely", so I'll take him at his word that he meant what he wrote about securing equal rights for gays and lesbians.
That was then, this is now. Who needs the log cabin republicans, since they're never going to vote for Obama anyway? Romney's stance on equal rights just doesn't seem to have the same ring it used to, does it?
"I have the same view on marriage that I had when I was governor and I've stated many times," Romney said. "I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."
