"All I Want for the Holidays by Jonathan Bannon Maher

I found this essay of Facebook, and thought it was worthwhile to share. The author is Johnathan Bannon Maher. Here are his thoughts...

"This essay was sent on December 8th, 2008 through postal mail to each of 535 members of Congress, 9 Supreme Court Justices, 50 governors, the President and the President-Elect, and there after to nearly every member of every state legislature as well as the leadership at the Department of Defense. It was written and sent off the cuff, and I realize there are a few minor errors but have chosen to leave the orignal text intact."

All I Want for the Holidays by Jonathan Bannon Maher

When trade smiths, farmers, teachers and clergy sailed west on boats from Europe with their families in the early 1600s, they sought to leave behind oppression in favor of opportunity and freedom. A century and a half later this vision was recorded in a document, The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, perhaps best epitomized by the idea captured in the phrase "all men are created equal". Though imperfectly gender specific, it was the first time in the history of humanity that had ever been declared by a governing body. On November 4th of this year, we saw our founders' vision affirmed in the first election of an African American to the highest office of the land, but on the same day, that founding vision fell short in the passage of a law in California to prohibit marriage between loving consenting adults of the same sex.

I am gay, but at 27, marriage is not necessarily the first thing on my mind as I write this. Here is what is on my mind: discriminating between heterosexuals and homosexuals in the law–be it in opportunities for marriage, military service, or through the intentional omission of protections in employment, housing and education–creates a stigma that carries over to the workplace and our public schools, sometimes with devastating consequences.

On February 13th of this year, a 15 year old in Ventura County California, Lawrence King, was shot twice in the head as he sat in his middle school classroom. He was killed by a 14 year old male classmate. According to students in a Newsweek article, he had recently asked that same male classmate to be his valentine.

This is a problem that affects everyone: when a significant percent of the population faces artificial hurdles in achieving their full potential to contribute to society, it works to hold this country back at a time when it faces increasing global competition and challenges to its leadership status.

There are, to my knowledge, three primary reasons that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality has not been fully supported in the past:

1) Family. Some believe gay marriage weakens families. In opposing the legalization of gay marriage in California in 2008, reportedly more than 30 million dollars were spent. If the money spent to oppose gay marriage had instead been contributed to family counseling services, it could have provided monthly counseling services to more than 25 thousand at risk families if the cost of a counselor were 100 dollars per hour. Strong families provide stability and resources for children to become the leaders of tomorrow. Strong families are extremely important, but denying equality to gays is not the answer. If the goal of opponents really is strong families, then opposing gay marriage is a misallocation of resources, and let us instead come together, and put resources towards social programs and counseling services that will support and strengthen families.

In addition, there are more than 1 million American children who do not have homes, who do not regularly attend school or receive proper healthcare, and who would be better able to develop into productive members of society if they had homes–even if those homes are non-traditional.

2) Nature. Some believe that homosexuality is unnatural. Around the world, in independent populations, researchers have found a substantially consistent percentage to be same-sex oriented. Over time, homosexuals have been among those who have had the most profound impact on humanity from Socrates to Alexander the Great to Shakespeare. Please remember that the next time you see a copy of Romeo and Juliet or use the Socratic Method. Opposing gays based on nature is like opposing the wind or the sun. You can put up walls but you would be better off putting up wind turbines and solar panels.

3) Religion. Some oppose homosexuality based on religion. "For a man to lie with another man as he would a woman is 'toevah'" (Leviticus 20:13), where toevah is commonly translated as "abomination" or "sin". In that same passage it is also declared toevah to eat shrimp. Toevah literally translates as "against ritual". At the time the Bible was written, people needed to reproduce for the strength of the community – today we have the opposite problem globally, a Malthusian state, where population growth outpaces natural resource replenishment. (Disclosure: the following segment is Jed Bartlet inspired) We are also told that to touch pig skin makes one unclean, that a father may sell his daughter into slavery, and that a person should be put to death for working on the Sabbath (Sabbath is literally translated as "Saturday"). Next time you're watching football on a Sunday, ask yourself if on moral grounds, you should be supporting people who touch pig skin (Leviticus 11:8). If you're someone's daughter, next time you think to oppose homosexuals based on religion, please, ask yourself, "what would a fair price for me be?" (Exodus 21:7). If you answer a work related email on your Blackberry on the Sabbath, ask yourself if law enforcement officials should be legally obligated to stone you to death (Leviticus 23:3).

To those reading this who are heterosexual, in addition to full and equal treatment in every area, including workplace compensation, opportunity and responsibility commensurate with ability, I ask that if you see discrimination in school or in the workplace, remember how discrimination works: they go after you for something else, and if there is nothing else, they'll make something up. If you see this, speak up and out. Please. While you may be alone in your courage you are not alone in your thinking. Others will be with you when you stand on the right side of history. And please redistribute this document.

If you are a heterosexual parent of a homosexual child, please visit your local P-FLAG meeting for support services. You are not alone.

To those reading this who are homosexual, please come out to your friends, then to your family and your employer. There can not be acceptance without understanding. And please redistribute this document.

Henry David Thoreau once wrote, "I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life through a conscious endeavor." John Kennedy once said "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man." If there is anything history has shown, it is that we can progress. That humanity, can progress. That there will be a better tomorrow. One where to the vision this country was founded upon is fully realized; where we, together as a country, once more sail west and leave behind oppression in favor of opportunity and freedom.

Thank you for reading.

Please don't turn your back on us... Part 3

Here’s some interesting updates on the issue of repealing the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) as seen on MSNBC.

Here are the links for reactions from the Rachel Maddow Show...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31396563

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31416719

Here’s what Keith Olberman had to say on the subject...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#31416031

Please don't turn your back on us... Part 2

Here's a link to Rachel Maddow's interview with Howard Dean, which talks about my previous post. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31378698

Watch and enjoy. More comments to come later.

Please don't turn your back on us...

During the primaries I was energized by Obama. I listened to the speeches and I was moved to campaign for Obama. His ideas gave me hope and I donated money to the Obama campaign. Finally, when the time came, I voted for Obama. I supported him then, and I support him now. I believe that he is honestly the best thing for our country. He recognizes that times have changed, and the United States needs to change with them. America can no longer sit back and engage in the “business as usual” policies of the past. True change is never easy, and usually comes with at a cost. All that having been said, I have discovered one bone of contention I would like to pick with his administration.

While engulfed in his campaign, Obama said the his personal belief was that marriage was between a man and a woman. He also said that he would be a fierce advocate for gay rights, regardless of his personal beliefs. That’s what he said. Based on what I’ve just read, he either lied about that, or has allowed himself to fall victim to the forces of Washington D.C., and has now turned 180 degrees from the aforementioned ‘fierce advocacy.’

Last week, the Obama administration lawyers filed a brief in a California District Court, that not only defended the Clinton era Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but vehemently argued that DOMA was constitutional. The brief went on to compare same sex marriage with incest and underaged unions.

Here’s a link to the article in question: http://is.gd/10U9W

While I’m used to hearing this sort of rhetoric from right wing nut jobs, I was floored to read the words were coming not only from democrats, but from Obama administration lawyers.

It has been suggested, by Howard Dean (the former Chairman of the DNC) that Obama probably didn’t know about the content of the brief, and I sincerely hope that’s true. All will be revealed in time.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Part 2

As far as discussing gays in the military, let me just say that the military wasn’t created to be a vehicle for political and social change. It has been said that homosexuals serving openly in the military will pose a threat to unit cohesion and discipline. That’s probably true. The very same thing was said about black men in the military nearly 60 years ago. 

Here's the reality: According to the Brookings Institute book, entitled “Blacks in the Military” authored in 1982, it was said that, “Most whites do not associate with blacks, and blacks, through no fault of their own, do not have the skills or education for many of the Army’s occupational specialties.” This opinion was given at the time black men were first starting to serve along side their white Army colleagues. 

So what happened when blacks began their military service? Their presence did disrupt the status quo, but the military got over it. The military adapted. The same thing can be said about gays in the military. 

Public acceptance of gays in the military grew from 51% in a 1977 Gallup Poll to 80% in 2003. Our own military ordered a study concerning gays serving openly. The study was conducted by the RAND corporation, a think tank created by our military, back in 1993. The study showed that sexual orientation is irrelevant to military performance. A March, 2000 study by the Naval Postgraduate School found that disapproval of gays in the Military dropped from 57.8% to 36.4%. Finally, the Center for Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, revealed that since 1992, the number of U.S. Army men who “strongly oppose” gays serving in uniform dropped nearly half, from 67% to 37%. 

If the enlisted and officer men and women can accept homosexuals amongst their ranks, then why should their leaders have any objection? As long as they are doing their jobs, then why should anyone care? 

Roughly 1000 able bodied homosexual men and women are unceremoniously drummed out of the military, via the Pentagon, every year. This forced exodus costs tax payers nearly 27 million dollars annually. In an all volunteer military, why should certain individuals be forced out, based on nothing more than their sexual orientation? 

Homosexuality is not the end all and be all of evil incarnate on this planet. Ignorance and discrimination are. 

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Part 1

Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell'

Pentagon policy forbids gays, lesbians from serving openly in the military

 Updated 10:47 a.m. MT, Mon., June 8, 2009

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down a challenge to the Defense Department policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.

The court said Monday that it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.

In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman referred requests for comment to the Justice Department, but said the military policy "implements the law."

"The law requires the (Defense) Department to separate from the armed services members who engage in or attempt to engage in homosexual acts; state they are homosexual or bisexual; or marry or attempt to marry a person of the same biological sex," Whitman said in a statement.

Advocates vow to press ahead
A legal advocacy group vowed to press ahead with efforts to reverse the policy despite the legal setback.

"We don't see that at all as bad news for repeal," said Kevin Nix, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "What happened today puts the ball back into the court of Congress and the White House to repeal the law, and that's where we think it should be right now."

Nix said there are no objective studies showing unit cohesion, morale and order are harmed by openly gay people.

"There are people out there and still serving, and the unit is not crumbling beneath their feet," he said, adding that attitudes among troops and society are far different than they were in the 1990s when the policy was instituted.

"Times have changed ... fast forward 16 years," Nix said. "The service members in Iraq and Afghanistan — their attitudes toward gay people are very different than some retired generals in their 50s and 60s who served in the 20th Century. It's a different world."

Opposition to gay marriages, for example, has eased nationwide and six states have legalized same-sex unions. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa allow gay marriage, though opponents hope to overturn Maine's law with a public vote.

California briefly allowed gay marriage before a public vote banned it; a court ruling grandfathered in couples who were already married.

Polls show younger Americans are far are more tolerant of gay marriage than are older generations.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was established in 1993. President Bill Clinton had to abandon efforts to allow gays to serve openly in the armed forces after facing strong resistance from the military and members of Congress.

Obama's campaign pledge
During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama pledged to overturn the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January.

Meanwhile, the White House has said it will not stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.

Last year, the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowed a decorated flight nurse to continue her lawsuit over her dismissal.

The court stopped short of declaring the policy unconstitutional, but said that the Air Force must prove that ousting former Maj. Margaret Witt furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

First evaluation since Texas sodomy verdict
The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the first that evaluated "don't ask, don't tell" through the lens of a 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas ban on sodomy as an unconstitutional intrusion on privacy.

The administration did not appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court and Witt's lawsuit is ongoing.

The appeals court in Pietrangelo's case also took the high court decision into account, but concluded that it should defer to Congress' determination that the policy fosters cohesion in military units.

The case is Pietrangelo v. Gates, 08-824.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

An e-mail from HRC

Dear Mike,

Yet another major victory in New England: today New Hampshire's governor signed marriage equality into law, making it the sixth state to allow loving same-sex couples to marry.

The bill survived a spate of propaganda from the right-wing National Organization for Marriage – the same group that ran the fake "Gathering Storm" ad – hammering Gov. John Lynch to veto equality.

We prevailed. But now Gov. Lynch and the courageous lawmakers who passed this bill are about to feel the sting of a right-wing backlash. Let's show them they did the right thing.

Thank Gov. Lynch and New Hampshire's lawmakers for passing this landmark bill.

This was no easy victory. After several close votes and months of hard work by many, the bill reached Gov. Lynch's desk and was signed into law.

This is a clear case where every single effort made a big difference – every donation, all 11,000 petition signatures, all 1,000 phone calls, and every volunteer hour made this narrow victory possible in New Hampshire.

With your support, we were able to offer the New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition on-the-ground help from HRC staffers, as well as grassroots support during key moments in the campaign. Watch our new video to get the full story >>

Of course, New Hampshire is not the end of our fight for marriage equality. We'll continue our work to expand equality in states like New York, where a vote on marriage equality could come within a few weeks. We're also working to protect our recent victory in Maine against a Prop. 8-style campaign and to win back marriage in California.

Right now, we need to make sure that our lawmakers know they have our support when they do the right thing, despite the right wing's desperate threats to unseat any lawmaker who votes for equality.

Celebrate another tremendous victory for marriage equality by giving New Hampshire's leaders the praise they deserve.

Send your note to the leaders of New Hampshire who stood up for what's right.

Your spirit and dedication is the driving force behind every single step in this journey together toward full equality for every American. I cannot thank you enough for all that you do.

Warmly,

Joe Solmonese
President

And yet another state...

              New Hampshire governor signs gay marriage bill

Law to take effect in Jan.; state becomes sixth to allow same-sex unions: If you wait long enough, another state will legalize same sex marriage. Here's the latest news...

Gov. John Lynch, D-N.H., signs gay marriage into law in Concord, N.H. on Wednesday.

updated 5:22 p.m. MT, Wed., June 3, 2009

CONCORD, New Hampshire - New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage after the Senate and House passed key language on religious rights and Gov. John Lynch — who personally opposes gay marriage — signed the legislation Wednesday afternoon.

After rallies outside the Statehouse by both sides in the morning, the last of three bills in the package went to the Senate, which approved it 14-10 Wednesday afternoon.

Cheers from the gallery greeted the key vote in the House, which passed it 198-176. Surrounded by gay marriage supporters, Lynch signed the bill about an hour later.

'Standing up for liberties'
"Today, we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities — and respect — under New Hampshire law," Lynch said.

Lynch, a Democrat, had promised a veto if the law didn't clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services. Legislators made the changes.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa already allow gay marriage, though opponents hope to overturn Maine's law with a public vote.

California briefly allowed gay marriage before a public vote banned it; a court ruling grandfathered in couples who were already married.

The New Hampshire law will take effect Jan. 1, exactly two years after the state began recognizing civil unions.

The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, elected in New Hampshire in 2003 as the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, was among those celebrating the new law.

"It's about being recognized as whole people and whole citizens," Robinson said.

"There are a lot of people standing here who when we grew up could not have imagined this," he said. "You can't imagine something that is simply impossible. It's happened, in our lifetimes."

Opponents, mainly Republicans, objected on grounds including the fragmented process.

"It is no surprise that the Legislature finally passed the last piece to the gay marriage bill today. After all, when you take 12 votes on five iterations of the same issue, you're bound to get it passed sooner or later," said Kevin Smith, executive director of gay marriage opponent Cornerstone Policy Research.

For the full story, please click on the link below...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31092122/displaymode/1176/rstry/31090983/

It's marriage, not rocket science...

Over the last 20o years, different groups of people have had to fight to obtain certain basic rights that the white men of America have enjoyed since this country's founding. In 1865 slavery was legally abolished. Shortly there after, in 1870, black men received the right to vote. Back in the late 1800s and the early 1900s, women had to fight for their right to vote, and at times the backlash turned cruel and torturous, but they finally won that battle in 1920. In 1964, the efforts of the Civil Rights movement came to fruition, via Act 5, ending segregation. Finally, interracial marriage was finally made legal, in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in 1967.

Now let's jump ahead to present day. Homosexuals are now fully engulfed in a battle of their own. I am lucky enough to live in a city that has said discrimination toward homosexuals is illegal (though it took a nationally publicized, and lengthy legal battle). It seems that every month or so, another state grants the right of marriage to the GLBT community, although, it is still illegal for same sex couples to get married in Colorado.

This issue is about a persons' rights. The GLBT community is fighting for the right to become legally married. By that, I mean to call such a union "marriage" and enjoy all the rights afforded to such a joining. I really didn't understand why people were so against calling a union between a same sex couple "marriage." I found the entire thing perplexing. I've spent the last year or so speaking with many individuals, in my attempt to understand the aversion to the title of marriage for same sex couples.

The word "marriage" is defined in Webster's Dictionary, as this:

1. The social institution under which a man and a woman live as husband and wife by legal or religious commitments.

2. The state, condition, or relationship of being married.

3. The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes marriage.

4. An intimate living arrangement without legal sanction.

5. Any intimate association or union.

6. A blending of different elements or components."

If one were to strip away the obviously prejudicial definition of marriage in the first version of the Webster's entry, than all the others are of an indiscriminately inclusive nature of the word "marriage."

Some have suggested the word marriage be redefined. To what end? Why is the word marriage so predisposed to only belong to heterosexual couples? Someone told me that society could create a new word, a different word that would still have the same legal applications as the word marriage. They said the word marriage should belong to straight couples only, as that is how it has always been. That person threw out "gay-arriage." Call me crazy, but if you slap a thick British accent on it, the word would sound like the place you park your car.

If certain people are so upset about gay people getting married, than don't marry one! Why do people care? How does gay marriage hurt anyone? Well, I've had several conversations with people that are against same sex marriage. The responses are as follows:

"Gay marriage is against the God."

"It's supposed to be Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Please, that one is so gay.

"Same sex marriage goes against Judaeo-Christian beliefs."

"You must consider the sanctity of marriage, and what it means."

"Gay marriage will corrupt my children."

"If the people grant gay marriage, it will eventually lead to legalizing people being able to mary animals." This one is my favorite. Same sex marriage is the gateway to people having sex with animals? I'm sorry, but people having sex with animals is the strongest argument against repealing the death penalty.

Let's delve into the religious reasons against same sex marriage:

The bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22.

Leviticus also says that touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean: Leviticus: 11:7. How did that go over in the early days of football?

Any child who curses its' parent shall be put to death: Leviticus: 21:17.

Leviticus continues to say that any man who touches the bed where a woman with her period has been, shall be unclean: Leviticus: 20-27.

The holy book goes on to say that the entire town must come together to stone someone for planting different crops side by side: Leviticus: 19:19

It’s okay to burn someone for wearing a garment made of two different threads: Leviticus: 19:19.

But wait, there’s more:

The bible states that selling one's daughter into slavery is sanctioned in Exodus: 21:7, as well as working on the Sabbath is punishable by death: Exodus: 35:2. It also says that any man who engages in a sexual act with an animal, shall be out to death, and so shall the animal: Exodus: 22:19. What the hell? What did the animal do? Was the animal so beguiling that it simply overwhelmed the poor sap?

Are we to take the bible literally? If so, than I dare suggest that everyone I know is doomed to execution, if not the fires of hell.

Some people I have spoken with have talked about the "sanctity of marriage" as a defense against allowing same sex couples to legally wed. The sanctity of marriage? The average divorce rate in this country for first marriages is 41%. That's right, 41%. It gets worse from there. Second marriages end in divorce by 60%, and 73% of third marriages end in divorce. Where's the sanctity in that? Sanctity indeed.

Now to the corruption of our country's children. How does same sex marriage corrupt our nation's children? What is the basis of this argument? It was once thought that homosexuality was a mental disease. It was even classified as a disease as recently as 1973, until the American Psychiatric Association removed it from their list of mental disorders. After that, medical science has proven that people are born the way they are born. Once puberty starts, and all those hormones start to kick in, the game is over. It is at that point that some of our children start to realize, in some small way, that they are different from the majority of their peers. They start to have sexual feelings about others who are exactly like them (in a gender specific way). It is an extremely difficult process to go through, as society has clearly laid out what the youth of this country are supposed to do. Boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, and eventually a family will ensue (a dog usually shows up too). Most of the time, that's the way it works, but from time to time, it manifests itself in a different fashion all together.

It has been suggested that having a same sex couple living a few homes away from a heterosexual family would be a corruptive influence on that straight family's children.

In what way?

What will a same sex couple living on the same block, or in the same building, have to do with the essential development of that straight family's children living near them? Will those, ever so impressionable, children learn about "deviant behavior" that is considered by some to be against God? Only if their parents tell them about it. It all starts at home.

Prejudice is something that children learn from their parents. Parents have an awesome responsibility, in that they are in control of the majority of what their kids learn, experience, and absorb during the formative years. If the parents are racist, sexist, or homophobic, than those traits are passed on to their children.

People used to be arrested on "morals" charges back in the middle of the last century. That charge was primarily used against homosexuals. One example of this, albeit not that well known, was the arrest of Bayard Rustin in 1953. He was brought up on morals charges, and subsequently convicted of the same, because he was gay. Mr. Rustin was the right hand man to Dr. Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights movement, and was the tactical genius behind the 1963 march on Washington. He was an incredible civil rights activist who, because of the black (or rainbow) mark on his legal record, had to step out of the lime light, and was never able to truly explore his full potential.

The states might want to dust off the old morals charge, in preparation for the onslaught of bestiality that's coming our way. According to some, if same sex marriage is to become legalized in the United States, then soon people will want to marry their pets. While Scruffy can be cute and even adorable at times, I don't know of anyone that feels an uncontrollable urge to legally formalize that union, to say nothing of consummating their special relationship. Granted, I'm sure there are some out there that would want to wed their animals, and if they are willing to stand up, come together, and make their voices heard, than I say let them try. Good luck to you all. Chicken fuckers unite!

After all the political rhetoric is done, after all the religious fervor has died down, I find that what is left, the real reason that some are so vehemently opposed to same sex marriage, are the same things that have always been behind depriving different groups of people certain rights and privileges: ignorance and fear.

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered people live, work, shop, and generally go about their lives right next to everyone else. We are farmers and business people, students and teachers, police officers and fire fighters, fast food employees and government officials, scholars and illiterates, and have been around since time immemorial. Chances are that you know one of us, even if you don't realize it.

To those that believe same sex marriage should not be legal, think about this:

Is it that you feel there is so much love in the world, that there is no room for others to share the legally recognized, and legally binding, union that you enjoy?

We are not asking you to agree, or even embrace, how we choose to express our love. We do not wish to take anything away from anyone else. We wish to express our love equally to your own. We only want the same rights and privileges that you enjoy, if not take for granted.

As of this writing, change is coming, no matter how you may try to deny it. Please take a moment to think what it would be like, if you were told by your government, you could not marry.