Rather than focusing on the issue at hand, which is whether consenting adults in a loving, committed relationship should have the right to marry the person they love, the proponents of Proposition 8 have pushed this as an issue about education. They cite a provision of the California Education Code that sex education classes must teach respect for marriage. That's true. Then they talk about parents from Massachusetts who were outraged when their children were taught about gay marriage. What they conveniently fail to mention is that the same section of the California Education Code that that requires sex education classes to mention marriage also gives parents in California the right to withdraw their child from all or any part of the sex education curriculum that they object to. The code is very clear and goes on at some length about parents' right to review the curriculum and opt out of anything they don't agree with. A student may not attend a sex education class that their parents have excused them from attending. So there is no chance that your child can learn about gay marriage in health class if you don't want them to. I don't know if there are any other references to marriage in the education code but this is the one cited by the proponents of Prop 8, so I assume it is the strongest if not the only reference to marriage.
Now that we know our kids' education is still within our control, let's get back to the issue at hand. Do you think it is right to amend the very Constitution of our State, not just a law but the guiding framework of our government, to impose a narrow, religiously based idea of marriage that denies lesbian and gay Californians the rights that heterosexual Californians enjoy? Shouldn't every couple that loves each other and vows to live together and support each other as life partners have the right to get married? That's just as true now as it was in 1948 when the California Supreme Court struck down the ban on interracial marriage. (See below for a history of this issue from Wikipedia) Sixty years later, let's not fall back to restricting marriage based on prejudice. I hope you'll join me in voting no on Prop 8.
Some history, from Wikipedia:
Early, gender-neutral language
From 1850 to 1977, California's marriage statutes used gender-neutral language, without reference to "man" or "woman," in providing that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties capable of making the contract is necessary. While California did not explicitly define marriage as being between a man and a woman, court decisions and some statutes dating from both statehood and the 1872 codification of the civil law, assumed as much.
1948: The right to marry
In a 1948 ruling the California Supreme Court became the first state court in the country to strike down a law prohibiting interracial marriage. It was the only state supreme court to do so before the United States Supreme Court invalidated all such laws in 1967. The California Supreme Court held that:
Marriage is ... something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men.... Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.
This opinion was later cited by the Court in 2008, in support of the right of individuals of the same sex to marry.
1977: Addition of gender-specific language (to State law, but not to the State constitution)
In 1977, the legislature amended Civil Code section 4100 (predecessor to what is now codified at Family Code section 300) to read that marriage is "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman".
1999: Domestic partnerships
In 1999, Assembly Bill 26 passed and marked the first time a state legislature created a domestic partnership statute without the intervention of the courts.
2000: Proposition 22
In 2000, voters passed with 61% of the vote, ballot initiative Proposition 22, which changed the California Family Code to formally define marriage in California as being between a man and a woman.
2004: Same-sex marriages performed, then annulled
In 2004, a number of developments arose in the wake of Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to authorize the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples by the City and County of San Francisco. The 3,995 marriages were annulled by the California Supreme Court, but San Francisco began a legal challenge that was consolidated with other cases as In re Marriage Cases.
2005-2007: Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act
In 2005 and again in 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. The Act marked the first time that a state legislature had approved a bill authorizing same-sex marriage without a court order. Schwarzenegger press secretary Margita Thompson said, “[t]he governor believes the matter should be determined not by legislative action – which would be unconstitutional – but by court decision or another vote of the people of our state.”
2008: California Supreme Court ruling
On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court, by a vote of 4–3, ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution.
On June 4, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition to stay its In re Marriage Cases order pending the November vote on Proposition 8.
As of June 17, 2008, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid and recognized in the state of California. The Los Angeles Times estimates that 16,000 same-sex couples have married since June 17th.
2005-2008: Ballot initiatives
From 2005 to 2008, anticipating that either the courts or the legislature might overturn Proposition 22, opponents of same-sex marriages introduced several attempts to place a constitutional amendment before voters that would prohibit same-sex marriages—and in some cases, domestic partnerships as well. Prior to 2008, none had made it to the ballot.
In late 2007 and 2008, at least four different groups sponsored new ballot initiatives for a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages. One of them, whose website is ProtectMarriage.com, made it onto the November 4th ballot.
[ 1 comment ] ( 2 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 3.3 / 6 )Check out this essay by Pat Ford, the Executive Director of Save Our Wild Salmon.
[ 1 comment ] ( 2 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 1 / 1 )If you haven't seen it already, check out this e-mail written by a Wasilla, Alaska native who has seen Sarah Palin in action. I found it very interesting and it doesn't seem to be slanted to either party's political gain, although like everything else I've seen on Palin, it makes me think she is not worthy to be Vice President.
[ 1 comment ] ( 2 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 2 )I was listening to This American Life via podcast today and I found last week's episode riveting. It dealt with the financial crisis and bailout plan in much more detail than I had heard anywhere else, and it turns out that there is a way for the American taxpayer to profit under the plan. It's called stock injection, and the idea is that rather than buying up the banks' toxic assets, we should simply give the banks money in exchange for preferred stocks, meaning the taxpayers will own a share in the banks and be the last to lose money should they go downhill. Listen to the show , and then call everyone you can think of and insist that we implement stock injection. I tried to find contact info for Secretary Paulson or Neel Kashkari, but there seems to be no way to email the Treasury Department or to leave a message if you call over the weekend. I did call my senators, so hopefully they can publicize and promote the stock injection option. I see that purchasing stocks is now mentioned as a secondary measure to buying up worthless securities, but I think we should scrap the idea of buying up their crap, and go completely with the preferred stock idea.
[ 1 comment ] ( 2 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 0 / 0 )I just sent this to Representative Bilbray:
I'm writing to thank you and Representatives Filner, Issa, and Hunter for voting against the financial bailout bill. You made the right decision for the people of San Diego and America. I hope you will continue to oppose handouts to criminal corporations, not to mention the pork-barrell tax breaks that were festooned over this bill.
Thanks again,
Beth Ehsan
[ add comment ] | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 0 / 0 )The negotiations around Bush's bailout plan seem to be moving very quickly and it's essential that we get our two cents in now on how our 700 billion dollars will be spent. Here's the letter I just sent my Senators and Representative, based on the action item from Common Cause:
As you and your colleagues work to come up with a solution to the economic crisis facing our country, I hope you will keep the needs of the taxpayers – and not the special interests – foremost in your mind.
I realize that the markets are vulnerable right now. However, there is too much at stake to rush to judgment. I urge you to take your time in considering the current bailout proposal, even if it means extending your session past this Friday. Specifically, I hope that any bailout bill will:
* Be completely transparent about how our tax dollars are being used.
* Include strict oversight over the actions of the Treasury Secretary, including the ability to block improper transactions before they take effect. The current proposal gives unprecedented, unlimited authority to the Treasury Secretary, and makes his decisions non-reviewable by any court of law or administrative agency. The lack of oversight is what's gotten us into this mess; Congress should not compound the problem.
* Include provisions to help families who are in danger of losing their homes avoid foreclosure. Now that the housing bubble has burst, it is not fair to ask mortgage holders to pay off inflated home prices which far exceed the real value of their homes.
* Cap the pay of CEOs of the bailed out companies. As ordinary Americans struggle to make ends meet and taxpayers are asked to shoulder this $700 billion bailout, the CEOs responsible for these problems should not be receiving million-dollar bonuses and golden parachutes.
* Ensure that, when the bailed out companies become profitable again, some portion of those profits will be returned to the public treasury. This cannot turn into a public debt for private profit situation. We, the American people should own most if not all of the stock in the companies being kept alive by our money.
This is one of those rare situations where everyone in Congress recognizes the crisis, and their responses are not pre-determined by longstanding party positions (since nothing like this has ever been contemplated before). So let's see Democrats and Republicans working together on behalf of the American people. Everyone wants to keep the economy strong and allow Americans to keep their homes, jobs, pensions, and hard-earned money. So let's put the American people first and not create windfall profits for irresponsible corporations, nor consolidate more power in the hands of the same Bush administration which failed to foresee or prevent this crisis.
Thank you.
[ 1 comment ] ( 2 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 11 )I posted some more garden photos . I wrote a full blog entry but it vaporized when I tried to post, so no more for now.
[ add comment ] | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 2.8 / 11 )I've recently started downloading Democracy Now! to my ipod, and I feel so much more informed! Watching the mainstream media, and even listening to NPR, I didn't realize that during the Republican convention, the police were violently arresting reporters along with protesters. I didn't get to hear the activists explain that they're protesting for the working poor, the uninsured and underinsured, homeless families, single mothers, and the elderly who are struggling to survive in this country. I didn't get to hear an interview with Paul Waldman, who's written Free Ride: John McCain and the Media about the way the press repeats McCain's own propaganda. I didn't get to hear about the lobbyists working on McCain's campaign, McCain's involvement in the Keating Five scandal, or the lavish private suites bought by corporations at both parties' conventions.
I had to tune into Democracy Now! for all of that, and I plan to keep tuning in. You should too!
[ add comment ] | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 2.4 / 9 )I was shocked to read a poll yesterday that said Sarah Palin now has a more favorable rating than Obama, McCain, or Biden! Are the American people not paying attention? To be honest, I would think the revelation that her teenage daughter is pregnant would be enough to doom a Republican candidate, since they claim to be the party of family values and have morality on their side. In addition, I learned from the Wikipedia article on Palin that she herself eloped, and her first child was born only 8 months after the hasty marriage. And if you're looking for evidence of bad judgment, how about getting pregnant at age 44, then getting on a plane from Texas to Alaska after her water broke, then taking almost no time off work to care for her newborn baby? And by the way, I do have sympathy for her child having special needs, but she could have reduced the risk for this problem by getting pregnant earlier: the incidence of having Down's syndrome is 1 in 910 at mother's age 30, but reaches 1 in 28 at age 45.
Her personal judgment and parenting is one issue, but I question her ideas and actions in many areas.
The following information is from MoveOn.org:
1 Palin recently said that the war in Iraq is "God's task." She's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much—just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." 1, 2
2 Palin has actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group—who advocate for a vote on secession from the union—to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'" 3
3 Palin wants to teach creationism in public schools. She hasn't made clear whether she thinks evolution is a fact.4
4 Palin doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade." 5
5 Palin has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP. 6
6 Palin is extremely anti-choice. She doesn't even support abortion in the case of rape or incest. 7
7 Palin opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches. 8
8 As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them—shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, "news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor." 9
9 She DID support the Bridge to Nowhere (before she opposed it). Palin claimed that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. But in 2006, Palin supported the project repeatedly, saying that Alaska should take advantage of earmarks "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." 10
P.S. If you haven't seen it, check out the Daily Show clip on Palin. It's worth a watch
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=24753&id= ... jx&t=5
Sources
Read More...
[ 1 comment ] ( 4 views ) | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 1 / 1 )Surprise, surprise, Walmart is promoting itself as a green company while its actual efforts have been pathetic. They will make the efficiency changes that immediately save them cash, but refuse to put solar panels on most of their stores. The story is similar in Canada, according to an article Carl found.
He also found this article on various stores getting into solar panels. Kohl's has panels on 43 stores already. Go Wisconsin! But Whole Foods seems to be lagging behind, although their website shows they have a few solar projects.
Take action on the following alert from the Center for Biological Diversity:
Wal-Mart, the largest private purchaser of electricity in the United States, claims that environmental sustainability is among its chief goals. The retailer's much-hyped sustainability initiatives include being supplied by 100-percent renewable energy. Going green is how Wal-Mart's now branding itself.
Except, of course, when it comes to taking more than token action to meet its renewable power objectives.
If Wal-Mart covered the roofs of its stores with solar panels, the resulting solar acreage would roughly equal the size of Manhattan, an island of 23 square miles. But with more than 4,000 Supercenters, Discount Stores, and Sam's Clubs, Wal-Mart has only proposed to install solar panels on 22 of its stores. In other words, after claiming for years that it wants to be supplied completely by renewable energy, Wal-Mart has not even come close to reaching 1 percent of this goal.
Wal-Mart is skirting California law and refusing to incorporate cost-effective features like solar panels in new stores throughout California.
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that new projects in California adopt all feasible measures to lessen the significant impacts of their greenhouse gas emissions. There is simply no good reason for Wal-Mart to refuse to incorporate solar panels into its store designs. That's why the Center for Biological Diversity is taking the massive corporation to court for its failure to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions generated by new proposed Wal-Mart Supercenters in the Golden State.
Please sign our petition to Wal-Mart calling for it to follow the law and live up to its sustainability goal. And please forward this email to as many people as possible, so that the retail giant will hear loud and clear how many of us are outraged by its hypocritical business practices.
[ add comment ] | [ 0 trackbacks ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 5 )Back Next
Calendar
