fairyrune: (Reepicheep)
Dear Senator,

Thomas Jefferson once said, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Jefferson was saying that laws must not remain immutable; as society changes, so must our laws. It is so important for us as Americans to remember that fact that the above quote is engraved on the wall of the Jefferson memorial in our nation's capital.

Preventing people from gaining the rights and responsibilites of marriage based solely on who they love is barbaric, discriminatory, and disgusting. There is absolutely no reason to prevent two people who are legally capable of entering into a contract from doing so.

I understand that you object to same sex marriage on a religious basis. I believe that it is possible to maintain your religious views without interfering in the lives and happiness of others. If the marriage equality bill passes, your marriage will still be valid. Refusing to pass marriage equality based solely on religious objection would be like a primarily Catholic area outlawing the consumption of meat on Fridays during Lent. It would not be fair to those in the area who do not practice the Catholic religion. Not outlawing meat on Fridays would not prevent practicing Catholics from abstaining from consuming meat should they choose to do so, and it would not hinder anyone else's dietary choices.

Passing the Marriage Equality bill would not harm a single soul, and would bring happiness to and improve the quality of life of thousands of New Yorkers. I am in a heterosexual relationship, and I do not believe that the status of my relationship would be affected in any way by the passage of this bill.

Quite frankly, regardless of whether Tom and George next door are roommates, friends, life partners, married, or living in sin, it's really none of my business. I believe that people who are vocally opposed to marriage equality are far too concerned with the private lives of strangers. If they are opposed to same sex marriage, for whatever reason, that's fine. They don't have to marry someone of the same sex. However, who someone else loves and wants to marry is absolutely none of their business.

I urge you to vote yes on the Marriage Equality bill, because it's time for the laws of New York State to evolve along with society. It's time for us to put on our grown-up coats, and allow all New Yorkers equal marriage rights, regardless of who they love.

Thank you,
(My Name)
(My Address)
fairyrune: (Default)
I decided to write this post while in line at the supermarket last night, and then found out that it's blog for choice day. What a coinkydink!

Last night, while waiting in line at the supermarket while the poor cashier had a disagreement with a customer over a coupon for aluminum foil, I was perusing the covers of the tabloids and magazines.

On the front cover of last week's In Touch Weekly was a photo of Sarah and Bristol Palin holding their respective babies. Emblazoned above them was the headling, "We're Glad We Chose Life!" Cheery color, happy font, smiling faces.

My immediate thought was, "Yeah, it was your CHOICE to have those babies. That's the whole point!"

Then I started thinking about privilege.

The Palins are and upper-middle class white family. They have access to better-than-decent healthcare; they have a nice house; they have money. They have the resources to care for those babies, and that's fine.

What bothers me is that they make such a big deal about how happy they are that they chose to have their children. Well, yes, that was a great choice for you. You have the resources to deal with that decision.

Please note that I am not saying that raising a special needs child or being a teenage mother is easy for anyone, because that is not the case. I am saying that the Palins have certain advantages that other people might not necessarily have access to.

It bothers the crap out of me that the Palins are being held up as these bastions of the anti-abortion movement, without any acknowledgment of the fact that they are more privileged than the average person who might be considering an abortion.

Lots of people do NOT come from upper-middle class white families. The do not have access to better-than-decent healthcare; they do not have nice homes; they do not have money. Those people would not have the resources to care for those children, and whatever decision they made for themselves would be fine, too.

You see, other people's reproductive choices are none of my business. My reproductive choices are nobody's business but mine (and Rich's, by virtue of the fact that he would be involved, but that's tangental to this discussion.)

This is why America needs to remain a country where abortion is legal. Because other people's reproductive choices are none of your damn business.

Oh, and as for the public option? I would rather my taxes go towards the safe ending of an unwanted pregnancy, than having to pay for pre-natal care, the birth of an unwanted child, and then have that child end up in the foster system or something.

But that's just me.
fairyrune: (Default)
Most of you have probably heard by now that Pat Robertson has said some pretty terrible things about the people in Haiti, about how they made a pact with the devil to get out of slavery, and that's why they live in poverty and have been struck by an earthquake.

This article posits that the reason for the backlash against Mr. Robertson is because religion is still important to many Americans.

I disagree. The author of the article says that people are speaking out against Robertson mostly because he is misrepresenting their view of Christianity, and it outrages them.

I think people are outraged at Robertson because he just said some really awful, undeserved things about people who have just suffered unimaginable tragedy. It doesn't matter if you're Christian, Jewish, atheist, Muslim, pagan, or anything else; that's offensive. Saying that anyone who experiences a natural disaster such as the earthquake in Haiti somehow brought it on themselves is....well. I just don't have the words. "Despicable" might cover it, but only just. The fact that he uses Christianity as a cover for his hatred, while not irrelevant, is secondary to the fact that he is spewing hatred at people who don't deserve it.

Jon Stewart's smack-down is really fantastic, I think. Unfortunately, Mr. Robertson probably won't change his thinking. The best we can hope for is that he learns to keep his mouth shut.
fairyrune: (Default)
(RE: the situation I discussed in this post...)

Justice Keith Bardwell resigned!

Took him long enough...
fairyrune: (Default)
I'm sure you've all heard about the Louisiana Justice of the Peace who is in the habit of denying interracial couples marriage licenses.

To be clear, I'm going to start with a definition from Webster's.

Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
rac·ist \-sist also -shist\ noun or adjective

For those of you who may not be familiar with what's going on, Mr. Keith Barwell is a Justice of the Peace in NOLA. He refuses to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples because he feels that their future children will not be accepted by society.

He says, "I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way." By definition, that actually makes him a racist, doesn't it? That falls under "racial prejudice or discrimination," if I'm not mistaken.

As for the children, he says, "There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage. I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it." While this isn't quite eugenics, (a science that deals with the improvement [as by control of human mating] of hereditary qualities of a race or breed,) it does seem that he is trying to dictate who can breed with whom. Who is he to say who can have children, and who can't?

He also claims the "I have black friends, so I can't be racist!" excuse. He says, "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else." Unless, of course, they want to marry a white person.

This is 2009. The US government declared interracial marriages legal forty-two years ago. Mr. Barwell has taken it upon himself to ignore the law, and do as he sees fit.

I think he should be asked to resign immediately. If he cannot perform his duties as the law states he should, then he can no longer serve as a Justice of the Peace.
fairyrune: (Default)
Cut for political & healthcare content. )

Also, does anyone know why doctor's offices don't offer health insurance? I interviewed at two, and neither of them offered it. That confuses me as well.


Apr. 3rd, 2009 03:08 pm
fairyrune: (Default)

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective."

IOWA! Has declared the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional! So has Vermont!

On the same day! 

fairyrune: (Default)
How...how could anyone want to do this to another person, let alone 32,000? Do they have no human empathy?

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.
fairyrune: (Default)
I hope that the results of this election lead to some sort of reform within the Republican party.

(Keep in mind that I'm a registered Independant with mostly Libertarian leanings.)

Post-election ponderings behind the cut. )

Oh, and by the way? The people who keep pointing out that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein as if it's some sort of disqualifer can shut right the fuck up. Mr. Obama was born in 1961. Saddam Hussein wasn't even elected president of Iraq until 1979, when Barack was already eighteen years old. Saying shit like that makes you sound like a close minded idiot.


Nov. 4th, 2008 11:02 pm
fairyrune: (Default)


Nov. 4th, 2008 06:13 pm
fairyrune: (Default)
I voted! It took about two seconds! I got to pull the big red lever and promptly wash my hands as soon as I got home!

There were tons of people, but no line for my district. The little old lady who signed me in probably thought I was voting for the first time.

The one downside is that I did not get a sticker. :(
fairyrune: (Default)
([livejournal.com profile] ever_abstract posted the link. I'm copying and pasting the entire article here, because it needs to be read by as many people as possible.)

Commentary: So what if Obama were a Muslim or an Arab?

By Campbell Brown

Editor's note: Campbell Brown anchors CNN's "Campbell Brown: Election Center" at 8 p.m. ET Mondays through Fridays. She delivered this commentary during the "Cutting through the Bull" segment of Monday night's broadcast.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- You may find it hard to believe that this remains an issue in this campaign, but it does.

The candidates, both candidates, are still getting questions about Barack Obama's ethnicity and religion. If you are even semi-informed, then by now you already know that of course, Barack Obama is an American.

Of course, Barack Obama is a Christian. Yet just a few days ago, there was a woman at a rally for John McCain incorrectly calling Obama an Arab:

Woman at rally: I don't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's an Arab.

Sen. John McCain: No ma'am, no ma'am. He's a decent family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. That's what this campaign is all about. He's not, thank you.

Now, I commend Sen. McCain for correcting that woman, for setting the record straight. But I do have one question -- so what if he was?

So what if Obama was Arab or Muslim? So what if John McCain was Arab or Muslim? Would it matter?

When did that become a disqualifier for higher office in our country? When did Arab and Muslim become dirty words? The equivalent of dishonorable or radical?

Whenever this gets raised, the implication is that there is something wrong with being an Arab-American or a Muslim. And the media is complicit here, too.

We've all been too quick to accept the idea that calling someone Muslim is a slur.

I feel like I am stating the obvious here, but apparently it needs to be said: There is a difference between radical Muslims who support jihad against America and Muslims who want to practice their religion freely and have normal lives like anyone else.

There are more than 1.2 million Arab-Americans and about 7 million Muslim-Americans, former Cabinet secretaries, members of Congress, successful business people, normal average Americans from all walks of life.

These are the people being maligned here, and we can only imagine how this conversation plays in the Muslim world. We can't tolerate this ignorance -- not in the media, not on the campaign trail.

Of course, he's not an Arab. Of course, he's not a Muslim. But honestly, it shouldn't matter.

(Here's the original article.)
fairyrune: (Default)
Mortgages =/= Energy.


Yes. This.

Sep. 18th, 2008 09:15 am
fairyrune: (Default)
"Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8," - Brad Pitt.

He's talking about the vote that's coming up in California on whether or not gays should have the right to marry.

I liked him as an actor before, and I like him even more now.
fairyrune: (Reepicheep)
If Sarah Palin gets into the White House, even as VP, I will be sorely tempted to move out of the country.

The woman scares the crap out of me. She has said that the war in Iraq is "God's will." I would love the opportunity to ask her what gives her the right to presume that she knows what "God's will" is.

I think she is a disgrace to American women. From what I've seen and read, it seems that she is all for taking away rights that women in this country have fought for years to acheive.

You don't like the idea of birth control? Fine. You don't have to use it. You think abortions are wrong? Fine. You don't have to get one. That is your choice, one that you have the freedom to make. Don't you dare try to take away that same freedom of choice from anyone else.

Everyone is always talking about China and their reproductive laws. You think China's bad, just wait until someone like Palin ends up in a position of power.


fairyrune: (Default)

October 2014

1920 2122232425


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 02:44 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios