Have We Outgrown Prejudice? I'll believe it when I see it.

Today, I watched a segment on The Newshour about the Texas Municipality (a side note: I was unaware that Alaska was a Southern state, somebody slept through geography and possibly english, too) that's fighting the Voting Rights law and then later on CBS, CSI: NY dealt with neo-nazis and nazis. It's not like it was planned at all. But I found it especially interesting that on the same day that lawyers are in court arguing that we, as a country, have surpassed any possible reversions to decades-old racist practices, a TV show illustrates that we still have people here in our country who see some people as, to quote the neo-nazi from the show, "animals." I don't think I'm alone in thinking it'd be nice to be able to say we've completely moved beyond racial discrimination, but I think that we'd be deluding ourselves. We haven't eliminated any of the discriminations and prejudices that plague our country. Not completely. As I mentioned last week, women still don't receive equal pay for equal work. Women are still a minority in both house and senate. And the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned has loomed in recent years. (But that's another controversial subject all together.) The existence of hate crime laws shows that prejudice has not been eradicated. And it's not limited to race. It extends to sexual preference, gender and religion. The case Citizen B spoke of last week is a prime example of the prejudices that are still alive and well here in our country. The other side of the coin, of course, was also raised, that the voting law says some states are less capable of governing themselves. And while I concede that is a valid point, I'm still inclined to side with the other side. Maybe it's the mountain of statistical evidence that Congress compiled in 2006 to support their extension of the law for the next 25 years. That former President Bush signed. That says to me that there's a good reason it was kept on the books. But I'll admit, I'm also influenced by the fact that the plaintiff in this case is doing this all so they can move their election location from a garage to an elementary school. Nobody in the state government in any of these states is fighting this law. Is the law actually prohibiting them from making that location change? Or do they just not think they should have to ask for permission? As I understand it (and I could be wrong), it's the latter. In which case, I honestly find the whole thing ridiculous and trumped up. But then, what do I know?

Women Fight for the Right to Not be Treated as Property or Possessions

To continue the topic of feminism, here's an example of how the fight for women's rights continues around the world. Why is it that when men say they know the way things should be that it always entails them trying to turn women into property? I'm glad to see these women fighting back and I hope they succeed in bringing enough attention and pressure that the new laws don't become fully enacted. It's definitely a wake-up call that the fight for women's rights is not a thing of the past. Even here in America, women still don't get paid the same as men for the same work. I think it's still at around .75 to every $1, but I haven't seen the latest figures.

I Watched MILK Today

I've never understood how people who believe in Jesus and a loving God can believe so strongly that God and Jesus hate homosexuals. When I was in Sunday School I remember the church always stressing that Jesus said to "Love thy neighbor as thyself." I was raised on the golden rule, "do unto others as you want them to do unto you." I do not understand how people can call themselves Christian while at the same time persecuting people and trying to strip them of their civil rights. It goes against every tenet of Christianity that I was taught growing up. It's one of the main reasons that I don't like to affiliate myself with any one religion. For some people, it seems that they cannot feel safe in their beliefs unless they put down people who do not share them. Myself, I believe that if you feel strongly about something, then it shouldn't matter if nobody else agrees with you. Nobody can make you be gay. Nobody can make your children gay. It is not something that is taught or caught like a virus. Allowing others to live their lives as they wish and to have the same rights as you will not destroy families or marriages. It's the most ridiculous notion in the world to say that allowing homosexuals to have civil rights will destroy the sanctity of marriage or family. The only people who can destroy a marriage are the people who are in it. If you study history, many of the arguments that are being employed against the gay rights movement are the same ones that were employed against African-Americans and Women a hundred years ago. And look, women have been voting for, what, 90 years now. And the world has not come to an end. The government has not come crashing down around our ears. I hope that in less than a hundred years time, the arguments against gay rights sound as ridiculous as the arguments that were posed against African American and Women's rights a century ago.

if the churches really want to preserve the sanctity of marriage...

Drafted by my dear friend, Citizen B. I've long wondered why it is that so many people and religions feel that homosexual relationships are a threat to their own. How does who my friend chooses to date affect who I am dating? Answer: It doesn't. I've always felt these must be the same people who feel threatened by anyone who doesn't believe everything they do. If you are secure in your beliefs, in your relationships, then nothing that anyone else believes or loves should affect your own beliefs or loves.

Petition for the TRUE Sanctity of Marriage
Submitted by Citizen B

The residents of this state believe our constitution should be amended to protect the sanctity of marriage. Like Proposition 8 in California, this creates in our constitution a definition for marriage- one man and one woman. But let's go back to that word sanctity. We the undersigned feel that constitution does not do enough to preserve this union under its laws.

Therefore, we propose a Sanctity of Marriage Bill to be amended to our constitution. The provisions under the bill are as follows:

1) The intention of marriage is to produce offspring. Therefore, marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman, because two men or two women joined in such a union cannot naturally procreate.

2) Because marriage must lead to procreation, all men and women wishing to be married in this state must undergo fertility tests before receiving a marriage license. If one or both of the potential spouses is found to be infertile, it is illegal for them to marry, because they cannot fulfill the sacred duty of marriage.

3 ) Marriage vows should be written into the letter of the law. Therefore, divorce will be outlawed, assuring that couples stick it out until death do they part. (See addendum bill allowing the state to consider divorce cases only in most dire circumstances of abuse; infidelity is not considered abuse and, therefore, is not a reason for divorce.)

4) To uphold the sanctity of marriage, the spouses must try to produce an offspring in the first year of their marriage. To make sure the couple does not try to violate this sacred marriage right of childbearing, it is illegal to sell contraceptives to married couples. We cannot allow fertile married people in our state to forgo their sacred duty and prevent life!

5) If in the first year of marriage no offspring has been produced, a child will be provided for the couple by the state.

6) With divorce being illegal, there shall be no more prenuptial contracts. What's yours is hers until death do you part, gentlemen.