The phrase 'activist judges' is concocted by conservatives as an emotionally laden stand-in for "I don't like how they ruled." They complain judges have no right to interfer in their lives, that they should not legislate from the bench. Let's think this through.
When it comes to judges interfering in people's lives -- that's what they do -- they send people to jail, the let them go free, they impose fines and other penalties, they interfere. Superior and Supreme Court judges don't operate at that individual level. Rather, based on specific cases, they tell us what our over-arching laws currently say. They are not legislating, they are reporting the status quo of current law.
Let's look at same-sex marriage in California as a case in point. In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court told the state 1) their current laws enforced nondiscrimination against gay/lesbian people and 2) marriage was deemed a basic human right by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, they could only rule the way they did based on the current law. They were not "imposing" anything on the state, they were telling Californians the status quo of their current law. Proposition 8 proposes to change current law, but the same court must now debate whether a basic human right - marriage - can be denied to a minority by a majority. The Court appears to be leaning toward letting that happen. If they do it will be a mistake, flying in the face of 200 years of American jurisprudence. If they strike down Prop 8, it will not be "activism," it will be constitutional law at work based on current rulings from the United States Supreme Court on the nature of our own U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution was specifically designed to protect the rights of minorities from a majority who just doesn't like them. That's why Irish, Italian and other unpopular immigrant groups over the years were able to settle in this country and make a life for themselves. It is why Jews don't have to become Christians, Catholics don't have to become Protestants (or vice versa) and we can all practice any religion or none at all. It is why women have voting rights and we no longer have slavery. The Constitution is a living document that continues to imbue our society with greater individual liberties. This is despite the desire of religious conservatives who have, unfortunately, opposed such moves at every turn - slavery, women's rights and so forth. Read your history. Take a civics class. This is not judicial 'activism,' this is your democracy at work.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
The Dumbest Ruling in Court History... and its cure
Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear for nearly two decades (1979-1998) when she discovered she had been consistently paid less than her male equals. She sued and the case went all the way to the Federal Supreme Court. This would be the Supreme Court now loaded up with Bush's "business friendly" appointees. In a mind-goggling ruling, they did not deny that Lilly had been discriminated against, but ruled she needed to file her complaint within 180 days of the first occasion of discrimination. Justice Alito, speaking for the majority of the court (5 justices) stated, "she could have, and should have, sued" when the pay decisions were made, instead of waiting beyond the 180-day statutory charging period. That would be nearly 20 years earlier when she had no knowledge, and no way of knowing, she was being discriminated against. This ended her lawsuit and left her bereft of even the money she should have earned, let alone any damages or interest she should have been paid. If ever there was a ruling that reeked of favoritism and unfairness this was it. In effect, it said if a corporation can keep you from knowing you're being discriminated against for 6 months, they get a free pass. This was, in my opinion, the dumbest ruling in legal history... or at least since the Roman Emperor Caligula made his horse a Senator.
In response, the Democratic Congress in April 2008 attempted to pass legislation -- The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- to remedy the legal situation and make sure this never happened to another person, male or female. The Republicans opposed it, and while the house passed it, the Senate could never muster enough support to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster. It never came to a vote. Even if it had passed, Bush had already threatened to veto it. If you're not outraged yet, you're not paying attention.
What is the cure? The House of Representatives this past week once again took up the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and passed it with an overwhelming majority. However the Senate still does not have a filibuster proof majority. It is going to be up to us citizen-leaders to apply the heat to our Senators, especially if they are Republicans. I urge you, if you believe in fairness at all and that everyone deserves equal pay for equal work, to call your Senator, regardless of party affiliation and even if you have never done so before. Tell your Senator to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Visit this site: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ and click on your state in the interactive U.S. map. It will pull up a list of your Senators. Click on the Senator's name or webpage and find links to send the Senator an electronic message or make a phone call.
In response, the Democratic Congress in April 2008 attempted to pass legislation -- The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- to remedy the legal situation and make sure this never happened to another person, male or female. The Republicans opposed it, and while the house passed it, the Senate could never muster enough support to overcome a threatened Republican filibuster. It never came to a vote. Even if it had passed, Bush had already threatened to veto it. If you're not outraged yet, you're not paying attention.
What is the cure? The House of Representatives this past week once again took up the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and passed it with an overwhelming majority. However the Senate still does not have a filibuster proof majority. It is going to be up to us citizen-leaders to apply the heat to our Senators, especially if they are Republicans. I urge you, if you believe in fairness at all and that everyone deserves equal pay for equal work, to call your Senator, regardless of party affiliation and even if you have never done so before. Tell your Senator to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Visit this site: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ and click on your state in the interactive U.S. map. It will pull up a list of your Senators. Click on the Senator's name or webpage and find links to send the Senator an electronic message or make a phone call.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Why It is Prop H8
California's Proposition 8, or as it has come to be known to many of us "Prop H8," has finally pushed many of us in the gay community over the edge. It is one thing to have people oppose your rights; quite another to have people go to the polls and vote to strip away rights you worked hard to obtain. I admit I am anything but objective on this issue, but objectivity is not called for in this case. A group of people coming from a narrow religious perspective have invested millions of dollars to strip people in my community of their rights to be a family. Never mind they engaged in dishonest scare tactics in their ad campaign, many of which I saw online. I want to deconstruct here their arguments for doing so. I do so as a spiritual service to them. They are locked into destructive bigotry in the name of their religion. They believe in their hearts they have not only done no wrong, but are positively virtuous in their actions.
Let's start with their primary argument "defending marriage." Their hypocrisy is easily laid bare in that they seem to have no problems with divorce. There is nothing more threatening to marriage than divorce. Why not a multimillion dollar campaign to outlaw divorce? Wouldn't that do more to protect marriage? What about telling all of those divorced religious zealots they are not welcome. Of course, it would decimate their ranks and make hypocrites of 50% of Prop H8's supporters, since that is the divorce rate, even among evangelical Christians.
Next, many of them say they do not "hate" gay people. If by hate they mean they don't want to see terrible things happen to us, they are probably being honest, at least to some degree. What this masks to themselves is how horrified they are by gays and by the idea that society should treat gay people as their equals. No they don't hate us in their own sense, they simply view us as their inferiors based upon nothing more than a prejudicial view of our god-given sexuality. It has nothing at all to do with the quality of our lives, what we contribute to community, the society or our own families. The very definition of bigotry is to demean others over characteristics they did not choose, such as skin color, ethnic birth group or sexual orientation. In their view we are inherently inferior and, as the Catholic Church decreed in so many words, "evil." The view that our relationships and families should be viewed as the equal of theirs is repulsive to them. They "hate" in this sense: We must never be considered anything but inferior to them.
This comes across in statements from African Americans who say, "We understand hatred and discrimination. We don't discriminate against anyone. This is a moral issue." That very statement says they do in fact discriminate in the literal sense of that word of dividing based upon certain characteristics. They divide the world into married heterosexuals who are moral and married homosexuals who are immoral. To be immoral by their lights is by definition inherently inferior. They are appalled that anyone would consider their marriages no better than ours or conversely ours as good as theirs. They certainly do intend to discriminate -- and have invested money, time, energy and effort into being sure our families are not counted as the equal of theirs because they believe we are each, individually inferior. When we say "hate" and "homophobic" and "bigoted" we mean precisely their worldview that we and our families are inferior to them and their families.
Finally, they say to us, "You already have civil unions." (This, of course, is only if you happen to live in California, and of course most of us gay people in the nation don't even have that and the religious zealots across the nation oppose giving us even that because they fear we might be too equal.) Their view of our inferiority is finally cemented in this argument. "We'll be nice enough to let you have something like marriage, as long as it isn't what we have and what society most recognizes and values." We cannot have that because in their view we are not worthy of it. We are inferior. If this was not their thinking, it would be a non-issue.
The sad part of this is that no one is blinded by their rhetoric more than themselves. They may like us as individuals -- "some of my best friends are gay," they will say with all sincerity, and "I know a great many fine gay people" and in saying this they mean it. What they cannot accept is that we are their moral equals. Again, this is based upon our same-sex attractions, not any way in which we live our lives or what we contribute to society. Thus, in their eyes we are 2nd class citizens unworthy of society's acceptance. Our sexuality trumps everything and cannot be overcome no matter what "nice" people we are. Then they are truly puzzled when we are angry and wonder why we can't "just get over it." How can you get over being labeled inferior when you know you are not?
The reasons for this viewpoint are beyond the scope of this essay, but they are intimately connected to their religion--a viewpoint they wish to impose upon every American citizen. In fact, they view anyone of any other religions as inherently unequal and inferior to them, even their own religious allies.
I take the viewpoint that we must pray for them although the thought of doing so twists my gut. My anger is easily stated, my spirituality more a struggle in this case. Still, I pray they may be delivered from their own inner blindness. I invite you to join me.
Let's start with their primary argument "defending marriage." Their hypocrisy is easily laid bare in that they seem to have no problems with divorce. There is nothing more threatening to marriage than divorce. Why not a multimillion dollar campaign to outlaw divorce? Wouldn't that do more to protect marriage? What about telling all of those divorced religious zealots they are not welcome. Of course, it would decimate their ranks and make hypocrites of 50% of Prop H8's supporters, since that is the divorce rate, even among evangelical Christians.
Next, many of them say they do not "hate" gay people. If by hate they mean they don't want to see terrible things happen to us, they are probably being honest, at least to some degree. What this masks to themselves is how horrified they are by gays and by the idea that society should treat gay people as their equals. No they don't hate us in their own sense, they simply view us as their inferiors based upon nothing more than a prejudicial view of our god-given sexuality. It has nothing at all to do with the quality of our lives, what we contribute to community, the society or our own families. The very definition of bigotry is to demean others over characteristics they did not choose, such as skin color, ethnic birth group or sexual orientation. In their view we are inherently inferior and, as the Catholic Church decreed in so many words, "evil." The view that our relationships and families should be viewed as the equal of theirs is repulsive to them. They "hate" in this sense: We must never be considered anything but inferior to them.
This comes across in statements from African Americans who say, "We understand hatred and discrimination. We don't discriminate against anyone. This is a moral issue." That very statement says they do in fact discriminate in the literal sense of that word of dividing based upon certain characteristics. They divide the world into married heterosexuals who are moral and married homosexuals who are immoral. To be immoral by their lights is by definition inherently inferior. They are appalled that anyone would consider their marriages no better than ours or conversely ours as good as theirs. They certainly do intend to discriminate -- and have invested money, time, energy and effort into being sure our families are not counted as the equal of theirs because they believe we are each, individually inferior. When we say "hate" and "homophobic" and "bigoted" we mean precisely their worldview that we and our families are inferior to them and their families.
Finally, they say to us, "You already have civil unions." (This, of course, is only if you happen to live in California, and of course most of us gay people in the nation don't even have that and the religious zealots across the nation oppose giving us even that because they fear we might be too equal.) Their view of our inferiority is finally cemented in this argument. "We'll be nice enough to let you have something like marriage, as long as it isn't what we have and what society most recognizes and values." We cannot have that because in their view we are not worthy of it. We are inferior. If this was not their thinking, it would be a non-issue.
The sad part of this is that no one is blinded by their rhetoric more than themselves. They may like us as individuals -- "some of my best friends are gay," they will say with all sincerity, and "I know a great many fine gay people" and in saying this they mean it. What they cannot accept is that we are their moral equals. Again, this is based upon our same-sex attractions, not any way in which we live our lives or what we contribute to society. Thus, in their eyes we are 2nd class citizens unworthy of society's acceptance. Our sexuality trumps everything and cannot be overcome no matter what "nice" people we are. Then they are truly puzzled when we are angry and wonder why we can't "just get over it." How can you get over being labeled inferior when you know you are not?
The reasons for this viewpoint are beyond the scope of this essay, but they are intimately connected to their religion--a viewpoint they wish to impose upon every American citizen. In fact, they view anyone of any other religions as inherently unequal and inferior to them, even their own religious allies.
I take the viewpoint that we must pray for them although the thought of doing so twists my gut. My anger is easily stated, my spirituality more a struggle in this case. Still, I pray they may be delivered from their own inner blindness. I invite you to join me.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Who is JimCracky?
I am a study in contradictions. While I was raised in a poverty level Appalachian family in a leaning, old farm house, today I make good money and live in a luxury area of the country--lots of spas which I seldom visit. I have not forgotten my roots but I have learned to stretch my wings. I am a secluded extrovert, a home body who travels incessantly for my work, a gay man trained in spirituality, a conservative by nature forced to be liberal by a fierce sense of fairness and spirituality. I am a practical mystic. I like God and dislike organized religion including atheism, but I know churches and atheism have saved some people's lives and mental health. I am a disciplined mess. I love humanity, but some people really tick me off. I love fiercely, hate ferociously and regret how little I show the first and how easily I show the second. If you're not comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty, you won't like how I think. If you're still reading, welcome to my world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)