Politics Blog

Category: Gay rights

State Rep to push for equal rights

A couple of under-reported items from Tuesday's elections. I found this news heartening. Kalamazoo voters overwhelming approved a city ordinance banning discrimination against gays. More importantly, following that win, "Speaker Pro Tempore Pam Byrnes, D-Lyndon Township, introduced a resolution to amend the state constitution to allow same-sex marriage. Voters instituted the ban in 2004, when they approved Proposal 2."

Anticipating our commenters' response, yes I remember that last week I was horrified to learn of an attempt to amend the state constitution to ban abortions. The difference is Byrnes' amendment seeks to increase the right to choose, and the abortion amendment seeks to deny women a choice over their own bodies. I don't find that inconsistent. Others may disagree and no doubt, some will.

In other little remarked news from other states, the media virtually ignored that anti-tax/anti-spend initiatives went down to defeat in Maine and Washington state on Tuesday. It seems many Americans really do understand that government has a role to play in our lives and that we are all morally bound to kick in a little for the greater good.

Also, you may enjoy this slideshow of photos taken around the country on election day.

• Enlarge

Category: Gay rights

Civil rights, but only for the right people?

On Oct. 10, President Obama addressed a group of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender supporters at a Human Rights Campaign's (HRC) fundraiser dinner. He pledged his unwavering support to their cause and promised he would end "Don't Ask Don't Tell." He acknowledged he knew he wasn't moving forward on campaign promises as fast as some would like, but he assured them, "Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach."

When, President Obama, will we reach it? It's the 21st century and gays and lesbians are still being denied civil rights that are extended to other Americans, in particular the right to marry. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is federal legislation that defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Obama also pledged during the campaign to work for the repeal of DOMA, but his administration lawyers have already defended the law in court briefs.

If you took any piece of legislation denying the right to marriage or preventing people from receiving equal treatment in the military based on their sex, religion or ethnicity it would be illegal and unconstitutional. What makes homosexuality different? Why, as a country, do we continue to tolerate this?

Just last week, a justice of the peace in Louisiana denied a marriage license to a black man and white woman, despite the fact that in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Loving v. Virginia that to deny the right to marriage based on race had no legitimate purpose other than "invidious racial discrimination." Why is sexual orientation discrimination not as invidious as racial discrimination?

I know Obama is busy right now. Dealing with a recession, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the passage of national healthcare legislation is a hefty agenda for any president. But if all that was happening at the same time that black people were being told they had to sit in the back of the bus and use different water fountains and women were being denied the right to vote, would we sit back and say, "That's OK, the president's too busy to deal with those issues right now"? Can you even imagine living in an America that legalizes racial segregation and denies women the right to vote because they aren't competent to make those decisions? Black people don't choose to be black, women don't choose to be women and gays and lesbians don't choose to be homosexuals. We are who we are and to treat either of us differently because of our race or gender is unconstitutional - as well as it should be for sexual orientation.

Civil rights for the right people? No. Civil rights for all people. Period.