The Truth About Liberalism: #6 Gay Rights

I know it's been a while, but I'm back to fight the lies about what most liberals believe, in #6 we'll be examining the expansive issue of gay rights, while focusing on one major area.

Homosexuals have been around for quite some time, seeing as they are alluded to in the old testament of the Bible. Probably since they've existed, they've been persecuted by the mainly heterosexual population, with small breaks here and there in places that were and are extremely tolerant. It's a fact that society becomes gradually more liberal/progressive/tolerant as time goes by, with some lapses. The substantial part of my audience that is conservative doesn't need to panic now, because this change is very gradual. The founding fathers were debating the morality of slavery almost 100 years before it was abolished by Lincoln, and women (part of society since the origin of humanity) just got the right to vote a little more than 100 years ago (I don't know the exact date, but it was in New Zealand), but still can't vote in some countries.

This new wave of tolerance that is slow to be embraced is the idea of allowing gay couples to marry and having the government recognize the union (an unthinkable idea not very long ago). Believing as I and most liberals do that all people are equal, have a right to the pursuit of happiness, and that what they do on their own time is their own business (this idea was reinforced by a Supreme Court ruling that struck down sodomy laws a while back), I see no reason that two people of the same sex can't commit to each other and have it recognized by society if that's what they want. The fact that many lawmakers see the need to amend the Constitution of the United States to discriminate against a group of people is very troubling to me. The root of conservatives' action is, as usual, fear. Fear of change, the unknown, you name it. By their very definition, conservatives don't like change.

However, the idea that if we recognize the existence of homosexuality, suddenly it will run rampant in society is a load of crap. People, there is no threat to the "traditional family" here. The vast majority of people will still marry someone of the opposite sex and the birth rate will not be affected, the only new thing will be a part of the population allowed to live their lives like they want to and not be second class citizens (which most people who are openly non-heterosexual are right now).

Some (probably many) conservatives would have you believe that being gay is a choice that perverted and morally loose people consciously make. That would've been like saying during the civil rights movement that black people choose to be black and therefore shouldn't have rights. That doesn't make sense, and the idea the one chooses one's sexuality doesn't either, because nobody (with very few exceptions) would choose to be a second class citizen.

Hopefully, more Americans will realize that homosexuality is just another of the many traits that differ from person to person and make us human, like skin color, religion, size, language, the list differences embraced by society goes on and on. It troubles me, therefore, that numerous states have taken it upon themselves to ban gay marriage, although one or two actually recognize these marriages. If you discriminate on this basis, what's next? A repeal of the Persons With Disabilities Act? Latinos having to give up their seat to a white person?

A person is a person is a person, and they all have the same rights.

No, Alex, this doesn't make me gay.

The Moral Police

These last few weeks have been big victories for Republicans and their base (that small group of neo-conservative crazies who are given credit every time a Republican wins an election). Bush, in a move I'll admit I didn't think he had the balls to do, used his first veto. Yes, folks, after more than six years in office, President Bush vetoed something. It wasn't something that needed to be vetoed, like ridiculous spending bills, but a bill that would allow federal funding for stem cell research. People with alzhiemers, parkinsons, diabetes, etc., don't deserve to have a cure if it angers Georgie's "base" I guess...

When Bush vetoed this bill, his explanation was that it was taking America in a moral direction that he didn't want it to go. This bill was, of course, perfectly legal and constitutional (not to mention a good thing). I have a message for Mr. Bush: This is not a theocracy. The beauty of America is that I can have one set of morals, and you can have what you think is right, and our opinions can be completely different, but as long as we don't impose our beliefs on each other, we're both right because it's a free country. Ayotollahs and the Pope single handedly make moral decisions for large groups of people. The (barely) elected leader of a secular country, I repeat, does not have a good reason to impede science on "moral" grounds. Even a lot of people who voted for Bush, I'm sure, supported this bill.

We all know about how the Church had astronomers like Galileo and Copernicus locked up because they claimed that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Now we all look back on that consolidation of power and say "What the hell were those idiots thinking?" And that's exactly what's happening now: Consolidating power and in the process impeding science, while also energizing the base. It's the story of the Bush regime.

In related news, congress approved a bill that would make it illegal to transport a minor across state lines to get an abortion without notifying her parents. This is a bill you can count on Bush signing. While I'm not opposed to the idea of the bill, I am opposed to the reason it was passed. Republicans refused an add on to the bill that would exempt people who didn't tell the girl's parents where they were taking their daughter and why if the girls parents were abusive. So now well meaning grandparents can be punished under this bill even if the girls parents would've beaten her within an inch of her life if they were notified of the situation. Take into account that Republicans also blocked an increase in funds for sex education in this session, and the abstinence only education they do approve of (since when was telling teenagers not to do something "because we say so" effective?), and it starts to seem like maybe Republicans really don't care about the problem of teen pregnancy.

I don't know about you, but when a problem in our society comes up on the floor of congress, I expect to see a solution achieved, or at least attempted. What I see is a bunch of monkeys pandering to the few with the loudest voices.

Ah, Republican morals for everyone, science swinging from a tree by it's neck, and teenage mothers. That's the American spirit.

No Place for Russia

Those of you who pay attention to the news will know that the G-8 is meeting now (the 15th-17th), and some of you may even know what the G-8 is.

The origins of the G-8 can be traced back to the oil crisis of the '70s, and the global recession that followed. In 1975, France arranged a meeting of six of the words industrialized democracies (France, U.S.A., West Germany, Italy, Japan, and the U.K.). The next year, Canada was invited to join by the U.S., and the group became known as the Group of 7. The European Union has also attended meetings at the invitation of the U.K. since 1977. There were few changes until after the Cold War, when Russia met with the member nations after the main summit in 1994. In 1997 they started to participate more fully in the activities, and the name was officially changed to the Group of 8 at the request of U.S. Pres. Clinton. Russia never did participate in the meeting of the financial heads of the group, because they aren't a major economic power, and this meeting is called the G-7. That brings us up to date, with the G-8 meeting every year to discuss issues of importance to the world.

I think the G-7 was a good thing, but that Russia has no place in an organization of economically advanced democracies. This is because Russia has neither a powerful economy nor a democratic government. They were more democratic 12 years ago when they started attending meetings than they are today. It's only a matter of time before Putin stops bothering to stage elections, and assumes the powers of a dictator. I also heard the argument on a talk show that there are lots of countries with bigger economies than Russia, and if Russia is a full fledged member, you can't justify leaving these other countries out.

The group does meet with additional countries (Mexico, China, India, Brazil, and S. Africa) after the main meeting. Some of these countries (by some, I mean China) aren't democracies, but without checking the numbers, I can confidently say that most, if not all, have bigger economies than Russia.

I propose swapping India for Russia. Really, India has more people than any of the other member nations, has a real democracy, is a major military power, and has a booming economy that is fast becoming one of the biggest in the world. The other up side is that India's been attacked by Muslim terrorists, so they must be good guys. The inclusion of India would end the monopoly that mainly Caucasian, western countries have on the G-8, lending a little more credibility to the organization.

But of course, nobody will put in a motion to swap India for Russia any time soon. Russia is the source of Iran's nuclear equipment, the AK-47s that our Islamic friends love, and the closest thing to a western democracy that hasn't had a jihad declared on it yet. So it follows that they are the only country with any control over Iran, and because we think we can control Russia, we think they're our best chance of controlling Iran. That would work great, if we had any control over Russia. As it is, we don't, and pandering to them is pointless.

Now, if we could turn India into a staunch ally of the west, we'd have a little more leverage over Iran, and the whole middle east. That leverage would be in the form of two pro western, nuclear states, one at each end of the mid-east (Israel and India). As it is, India's potential influence is being wasted on it's constant feud with Pakistan (which is probably another reason holding us back, Pakistan has turned into a helper in the WoT).

I guess I don't see why nobody's trying real hard to make friends with India, when such a friendship could do the whole world a lot of good, but we're still trying very hard to be nice to the Russians, who are just throwing everything back in our face. If we're going to keep Russian in the G-8, then the G-8 needs to be a lot bigger. Don't want a G-25? Fine, the door's that way, Mr. Putin, call us again when you've got an economy and a democracy.

Terrorists Everywhere

Am I the only one who's noticed that lately, the government's busting a lot more terrorist plots against the U.S. and publicly talking about all the details? I thought that we were at war, and couldn't let the terrorists find out how we gathered information. At least, that's what we were told when we wanted an independent investigation into 9/11. And why media sources are abused when they talk about government programs like wiretapping.

Nonetheless, it is an election year, and republicans have to have something positive to show for their disastrous War on Terror. This last "plot" that was broken up involved terrorists in Lebanon exchanging emails about how they might blow up some tunnels in NYC. Of course, none of them had any training or the means to carry this out (they were also still half way around the world). The farthest they had gotten was printing off maps of the tunnels, the kind you can probably get all over the internet. I'm not saying we should've just ignored these guys, but federal agents are talking about this like we just narrowly avoided another 9/11. Please, how many millions of young Muslim/Arab men print of maps of American cities and talk about blowing something up? Now, how many of them have any hope of ever carrying these dreams out? Maybe a couple.

My theory that we're just arresting anybody who's put down on paper some kind of half baked plan to blow up something big in America is furthered by the fact that in the last few months, three "big" plots against targets in North America have been busted (that one in Canada is the most legitimate in my opinion, the Sears tower and the NYC tunnels are pretty iffy as far as legitimacy goes). I ask you, if wasn't an election year (with bad conditions for republicans), how many of these groups of America haters would've just been roughed up a little bit by local authorities at the request of the CIA and then turned loose without any mention in any papers? Probably most, if not all, of them.

Personally, I'm outraged at this. You should be too, because this is the exact same thing the republicans did after 9/11 when they wanted America to go along with their screwed up ways. They're creating an atmosphere of fear. They want you to think that you're at risk from a terror attack wherever you go, so that you'll just defer to authority (the government). Remember the color code of threats? After 9/11, they'd keep raising it to orange for a few weeks, usually every couple of months, and telling people to look out for random things. It's called "Fear Mongering." The documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has a section all about it that's very enlightening (I encourage everybody who hasn't seen it to do so). I also remember, in my English class, Mr. Hanson explaining the idea well while we were reading Animal Farm (but you had to be there for that one).

Now I've helped to lift the smokescreen, we can see the real fruits of republican rule. Sectarian violence in Iraq, massacres by Americans in Iraq, rape and murder in Iraq by Americans, fourth of July fireworks over Korea, and tax cuts for the rich in America. For all his efforts, George W isn't even winning his war on terror. It's all a sham.

Supreme Court: President Must Follow Rules

Yes, you heard me right. The Supreme Court said in a ruling a coulpe of days ago that President Bush must follow laws passed by Congress, and the world. This came in the form of a ruling saying that prisoners of Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Geneva Conventions (get out!), and that he has to have congressional approval on whatever he does with them. This means that the days of "Well I'm the president, I'll do whatever the hell I want," are over. Now, he's obligated to follow the same rules as any elected official. That is, he has to follow the rules.

Republicans are trying to downplay this defeat (and that's what it is for them) by saying that the Court didn't put a stop to any of George's treatment/conditions of prisoners, but just that they have to get Congress to pass a law o.k.-ing military tribunals. Those Republicans would to well to review the part about the Geneva Conventions applying to these prisoners. That means the White House has been wrong this whole time (about four years) when they said that these prisoners didn't have any such rights. It also means they can't torture these prisoners any more and try to justify it. Wasn't this a great finale for Torture Awareness Month?

What this ruling really does is it sets a standard: The President is not above the law, and he can't just make up his own rules. When you think of it that way, this is a crushing blow to Bush's whole philosophy on how to govern. Now, laws passed by Congress can no longer be ignored. Take for example, Sen. John McCain's bill that bans torture of prisoners in U.S. custody: When he realized he couldn't stop it, Bush just let it get passed, then proceeded to say that he didn't feel obligated to follow it. Maybe now that he's been brought down from his throne, his obligations are a little clearer now, like that obligation the constitution gives him in Article II, Section 3- "He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That's not the part of the Constitution the Court cited in this ruling, but I think you'll see that rule practiced a little bit more. This was a no brainer for the Supreme Court.

Yet, three justices still voted in the Presidents favor, and a fourth (Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee), couldn't vote because he'd already ruled in favor of the president in this case while on a lower court. In his dissenting statement, Justice Clarence Thomas said that we should all just "get behind the president", and that he was disgusted that his colleagues were impeding the war effort. Can you say "lackey"? This is exactly what we needed in this time of war.