Categories
marriage equality Politics

Love Is Natural, Hatred Is Learned

Two alcoholic heterosexuals get married. They produce a child with fetal alcohol syndrome. This marriage has the blessings of both state and church. Two men or two women who want to marry each other, who are upstanding members of their communities and have adopted and raised productive children, are prohibited in most states and allowed civil unions, which are inferior to marriage in fact and in law, in a few.

This is equality under the law?

Marriage equality will be the law of the land sometime in the future but, for most gays and lesbians, justice delayed is justice denied. How can this be? How can a country that promises freedom and civil rights for all of its citizens continue to deny basic rights to a sizable group?

Opponents say that being gay is unnatural and that there’s something inherently wrong with loving someone of the same gender. That’s exactly wrong. Love is one of the most natural processes humans have. You don’t even have to think about it. It just happens from the time we’re born and lasts throughout our life.

Hatred and discrimination, on the other hand, are unnatural. We need to remember that people are not born anti-gay. Discrimination and hatred are learned behaviors and most children learn them from the very adults who claim to be fair, just and responsible. And why are these adults anti-gay? Some are frightened or threatened or jealous or ignorant or all of the above. Some use a rigid cultural definition of what constitutes a family. Some are offended by how other people show their love. Some use a deity as a weapon to threaten and marginalize.

The religious argument strikes me as utter hypocrisy. How can we love the sinner but hate the sin? Isn’t that attitude responsible for sanctioned discrimination and actions against homosexuals? The same goes for the social argument that the right wing peddles. How can the party that lives on freedom and keeping the government out of our lives continue to preach that government should deny marriage equality? Both groups have made the claim that allowing gays to marry would damage heterosexual marriage. In fact, the opposite is true. Marriage has been shown to make families more stable and productive, strengthens commitments to social values, and provides for economic expansion as people make purchases for different stages of life. Gender preference has nothing to do with how we love our family members or how firmly we commit to them.

The more compelling democratic argument is that every adult should be able to marry the person they love, adopt children and be protected by all laws and rights that all other adults have, including economic rights and privileges.  A federal court decision on Wednesday used an employment benefits case to determine that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The decision by U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White was unambiguous in its defense of liberty and equality:

“The imposition of subjective moral beliefs of a majority upon a minority cannot provide a justification for the legislation. The obligation of the Court is ‘to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code,'” White wrote. “Tradition alone, however, cannot form an adequate justification for a law….The ‘ancient lineage” of a classification does not render it legitimate….Instead, the government must have an interest separate and apart from the fact of tradition itself.”

 On February 7th, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that:

“Proposition 8 (which denied homosexuals the right to marry) served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

These courts have it exactly right. Denying citizens their full rights because of who they love is utter nonsense. The history of the United States shows us to be a country of inclusive rights. To have candidates for the highest office in the land proudly proclaim their preference for discrimination, hatred and disdain is obnoxious, offensive and backwards. Marriage equality is on its way. Let’s make it sooner rather than later.

For more commitments to equality and democracy, visit  www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

and Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
News

Obama Administration Proposes Consumer Bill of Rights

Have you ever done a search for a product on Google then watch in amazement as that product shows up in ads on all the websites you visit? That is just one of the many ways sites like Google and Facebook use your personal information to sell to other companies or track your presence on the web and the sites you visit to make money.

Various Consumer advocacy groups have cried foul on these actions calling them intrusive, and apparently, the Obama administration agrees. The proposed bill calls for more protection of Consumers information and better control over how this information is used.

The proposal, unveiled Thursday, is designed to give consumers more control over how their personal data is used and to help businesses build trust with consumers. The White House has called on the Commerce Department to corral companies, privacy advocates and others to develop policies based on the plan. The White House also announced that Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL have agreed to submit to Do Not Track technology and provide consumers with a means to control their online privacy.

The proposed Bill of Rights deals with six areas of online data management:

Transparency: Companies policies regarding security should be easily understandable to consumers.

Respect for Context: Consumers should expect that companies will collect, use and disclose personal data in ways that are consistent with the context in which consumers provide such data.

Security: Personal data should be handled securely and responsibly. Access and Accuracy: Consumers should be able to access and correct personal data.

Access and Accuracy: Consumers should be able to access and correct personal data.

Focused Collection: Data collection should be held within “reasonable limits.”

Accountability: Consumers have the right to have their personal data handled by companies and organizations that adhere to the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

Exit mobile version