YOUR FIST IS HITTING MY FACE

rep·re·sent·a·tive   /ˌrɛprɪˈzɛntətɪv/ Show Spelled[rep-ri-zen-tuh-tiv]
noun
1. a person or thing that represents another or others.
2. an agent or deputy: a legal representative.
3. a person who represents a constituency or community in a legislative body, especially a member of the U.S. House of Representatives or a lower house in certain state legislatures.

I have had a bee in my bonnet on this issue for a long time.  It seems like it is coming up more and more frequently, and not just because it is an election year.

When we elect someone to office, it is their responsibility to then represent us.  I know that each election has a winner and a loser and that the losing side deserves some consideration when it comes to their point of view.  The concept of "majority rules" is meant to keep both sides working to have their points of view debated and weighed during elections and the "side" that wins is the one which gets the most consideration when positions are taken.

What I see developing more and more is elected representitives making decisions based on their own religious beliefs, on what is politically expedient or what they think will make them electable in the future.  So when I see these polls indicating that 67% of Catholics and 64% of other voters think the President's birth control coverage requirement should stand, why are we still talking about this?  What leverage should there be when the will of the people, the desire of the voters is to support the President?

Why are the elected officials of this country even meeting with the Catholic Bishops Council?  Beyond their individual vote and the sway they may hold over their church members, what other say should they have in the governing of our country?  None.  If they want to become a political force, then they should give up their non-profit status, pay their way and join in the fray.  Otherwise, their constituency is their own membership - which is certainly not the entire country.

When John F. Kennedy was running for President there were a lot of people against him because of his Catholic religion.  They said they didn't want the country run by the Pope.  Yet just these few years later we are being forced to fight off  religious intolerance, whim, mandate, threat and  prejudice at every turn.

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, 'The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.' Rights must be limited to claims of freedom to do anything which does not violate the freedoms of others.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.  If you don't believe in using birth control, don't use it.  If you believe homosexuality is a sin, don't have sex with someone of the same sex.  If you don't believe in evolution, teach your children what you do believe and let the science teachers teach what they know.  Your right to believe in what you believe and practice your beliefs doesn't bother me until you try to foist it on me, my family, schools and the rights of others in this country.

WORDLESS WEDNESDAY

MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY

In my new job one of the things I am getting accustomed to is all the different terms for things.  The software we use for adding new files refers to the people as the client and the pet as the patient.  When we refer to the pets and the people in person we tend to refer to them in terms of family - the people are the parents of the pet.  We will say "Fluffy's mom is here to pick her up."  No one seems to mind this label.

So it is not surprising that 30% of Americans actually count pets as part of the family when polled.  The very sad thing is that only 40% of Americans think a gay couple are a family.

New research on the topic how a family is defined is contained in a book-length study, "Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans' Definition of Family" and in a separate 2010 survey overseen by the book's lead author, Indiana University sociologist Brian Powell.

Only about one-third of those surveyed said they considered same-sex couples without children to be a family. And in 2006, when asked if gay couples and pets count as family, 30 percent said pets count but not gay couples.

"The sheer idea that gay couples are given less status than pets should give us pause," Powell said in an interview.  (At least the gays have come up in the polls by 10%  since 2006 - good job America...)

In the 2010 survey, 83 percent of the respondents said they perceived unmarried heterosexual couples with children as a family; only 40 percent extended that recognition to unmarried straight couples without children.

The problems with this isn't really just about bigotry - there are real life altering issues for people which flow from attitudes about what makes a family.  Among other matters, it affects  income tax filings, adoption and foster care practices, employee benefits and inheritance rights. 

I think of all those kids out there waiting for a good foster home; waiting for an adoptive mom or dad and the attitudes of people stuck in "Ozzie and Harriet"  mindsets which are denying them the warmth and safety of those family bonds. 

We really need to get over ourselves and let everyone open up their homes and hearts to the kids out there, just as we encourage people to open their homes and hearts to all the little animals out there.  There are all kinds of families and all kinds of family members.

A GREAT DAY IN CA

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

...Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

The ruling has been made, the decision based on equal protection appears to be well supported and constitutionally sound (according to experts.)  It is, as I believe it should be, based on the fact that marriage is and has been a civil matter.  Religion comes into it only when the couple wants to add that element to their celebration.  I did not have a religious ceremony.  I had a civil ceremony.  

And I further agree that  "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

"Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages."

                                          
 Thank you Judge Walker!

I LOVE THIS!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q2R7O-0WRo

I am having touble with the proper way to add this Youtube video, but it is wonderful...