In the United States Attorney General’s written support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), another slap in the face arrived for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community on embossed Federal letterhead.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) states that state-sanctioned marriages between same-sex couples are not required to be acknowledged in other states, nor are they to be recognized by the federal government.
In the case of Smelt v U.S., the plaintiffs, a gay married couple, propose that DOMA is unconstitutional. In their response, the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ), as required by law for all currently operational statutes, provided a document of support for DOMA. While it is statutorily appropriate for the DOJ to act in this fashion, it was also possible for the President or a member of his cabinet to make a statement about this untenable situation. This was not done.
As with the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy, President Obama’s silence regarding DOMA is akin to Ronald Reagan not speaking the acronym “AIDS” (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) for the first several years of his presidency. In all three cases, the silence is a tacit statement of neglect for these important issues.
What is apparent is that there is a willingness to dismiss the LGBT community through governmental inaction, perhaps because it is too hard to face for the Federal or State governmental bodies, or perhaps there truly is an assumption of second class citizenry for those in this section of the electorate.
DOMA and DADT must be repealed. They are discriminatory. It’s that simple. Any president of the United States that does not understand that, does not see the history of our country repeating itself once again, no matter what is said about his education or background.
Lyndon Johnson took a strong stand against discrimination toward Blacks in the 1960’s. Woodrow Wilson signed the 19th Amendment to the Constitution giving women the right to vote in 1920. In 1862 and 1863, Abraham Lincoln signed the two documents that comprised the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves in the United States. What will President Obama’s legacy be? Will it be one of neglect toward fully ten percent of the population of our country or will it be as a dynamic force for liberty for all in the same light as his courageous predecessors?
I, for one, am hopeful that President Obama will come through as a strong leader. His history indicates that this hope is grounded in his focus prior to becoming president. Unfortunately, thus far, his actions have told a completely different story.
Perhaps a page from California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s book would assist the President in his education regarding how to be an effective and dynamic force for change.
Within the next year, we will see exactly where he stands. I suspect by the first anniversary of his oath of office, we will have a clear view of how the LGBT community is perceived by this standing president.
I pray the news is good.
There are tears being shed all over California, perhaps by the forty-eight-plus percent of people who voted against Proposition 8, banning gay marriage. These tears are bitter and disheartening in the extreme. These tears, too, are completely understandable.
There is sadness because the highest court in the state has said that those who believe that we should live as a theocracy within our boundaries are correct in their vote. They have stated to approximately ten percent of the population that our desire to join in a state-sanctioned marriage is invalid. They have confirmed our deepest fears and supported the voices who have yelled from the highest roof tops that we have no right to an ultimate family status in the State of California.
From this day forward, I will no longer capitalize california because we are less of a state than the other forty-nine. We are starving our children. We are not educating our young people as we should. We are validating discrimination. We are allowing the weak and the infirmed to struggle to find adequate medical care. We are a tragic and nearly obscene version of who we were in the past.
There are states of bliss and joy. My truest happiness is not dependent on this ruling. I am nonetheless married to my husband because in our wedding ceremony, we invited God into our lives to guide our paths together in the presence of many witnesses. According to the laws of Judeo-Christian belief, not elsewhere forbidden outside of man’s interpretation, we have met the standards of marriage. Even the Roman Catholic Church, at one time, sanctioned these unions of spirit. My happiness is found in my faith and in my family. No one on this planet can diminish that joy. So, it is amongst my family and friends where I find my satisfaction.
I find none of that in the citizenry of california.
There are states of despair and horror. As a gay, Latino man who is married to another man, if only in the eyes of God, on the lower end of the economic scale, I am in the states of sadness and shock, living in the state of california where people believe their personal comfort and consistency takes precedence over the rights and equality of all people. They call themselves people of conscience. Although I must believe that they are operating at the highest level of truth for themselves, I have to wonder.
God bless us all in our journey. This is a challenging time for everyone involved. I understand that. I simply hope that we find the core issues that stand before us. Clearly, we have not yet dug deeply enough.
When we do, we will agree that all of God’s children were created by Him. We will agree that each child of God has the right to share in all the blessings He has promised us. We will agree that there is no shade in the light of God.
And, for those who do not believe in a higher power, well, I’m certain they, too, have already seen the light of truth that each person has a right to live as they see fit under our United States Constitution.
The question is begged, “What if the atheists and agnostics have a better understanding of what is truly right and just between human beings than the conservatively religious?”
I have to admit, that question brightens my day.
Those days when I feel like a high school student again learning something new are my best days. Days similar to when I was not yet a dozen years old and my father, the pharmacist, taught me to read and write in the Latin prescription abbreviation lexicon, such as q.i.d. meaning four times daily, help me feel empowered by the fact that my still available brain cells are in fully working order.
Today was just such a day. I read State Attorney General Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown’s official response as an amicus curie regarding Proposition 8. This brief, filed in anticipation of the upcoming hearing about the constitutionality of Proposition 8, was lucid and vibrant in its language. AG Brown hit every salient point in his attempt to respectfully remind the California high court of the specific law and precedent regarding this case. As a citizen who remembers when he was referred to Governor Twinkie, I am especially grateful to The Honorable Mr. Brown for his insightful and powerful points of law.
Amongst his many important points, Mr. Brown reminds the court that in Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution, our citizenry is imbued with inalienable rights afforded to all its citizens. Not unlike our Federal Constitution, these rights are to be wholly ensured for the entirety of the population without prejudice.
I am no lawyer and I have not done any research on the case law whatsoever. I can only say that reading his words gave me hope; a hope that resonates within me back to a time that may have even been before my own birth. In these last few months, I have learned that I can, once again, have the pride and hope in my state and country that we are moving in the right direction and that everyone will be given a map for the journey there.
When my Aunt Mary would bake one of her delicious chocolate cakes for my birthday, my mother would make sure everyone at my party would get a piece and that each piece was the same size. She would remind me, if I happened to complain that I was the birthday boy and should have the largest piece, that I did nothing to earn the cake. This dessert was simply a way to celebrate with everyone the event of my birth. Everyone there got the same size piece of cake. It was automatic.
Mr. Brown has suggested to the court that everyone should get an equal share of the cake in the State of California. He is promoting the concept that whether one is homosexual or heterosexual, Asian or American Indian, short or tall, young or old, no one has earned the right to have a larger share of happiness in their lives. We are each entitled, by our very citizenship in this state, to the right to be offered a slice of California life and joy equal to anyone else’s. Whether one chooses to accept is up to them, but the offer must be there in the first place.
Certainly, Mr. Brown did not talk about cake or height or age, but that is what I read between the lines.
Is it possible that the signateurs of all the Amici Curie in this case who support the overturning of Proposition 8 all believe similarly with regard to the law, even if, in their private lives, they may feel differently? Can it be true that a small majority of a population can vote to erase the codification of joy and then be held accountable for that blatant discrimination? Apparently, these things are true.
There are many who wrote in support of Proposition 8. They, too, have the right to speak freely and put forth their cause before the court. From the briefs I read on their part, I was a bit shocked at what I read; however, I know that beliefs long held are strong.
I have no idea how the court will rule. I know what I want to happen, but fortunetelling, especially in this day and age, is a bit beyond me.
Thanks to Mr. Brown, however, I have found another level in my resurgence of hope.