Tag Archive: gay rights


Hi all,

According to this story posted on yahoo and written by the associated press, stated that U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips (in federal court) struck down the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy signed into law by Ex-president Bill Clinton in early 1990’s.  And it is a current debate with current President Barack Obama who made a promise to repeal it (which is yet to be seen).

According to the article, it was struck down because it violated the 1st and 5th amendments.

You can read the Bill of Rights here, but to state the 1st and 5th amendments:

1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

5th: No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now if you read my previous blog posting on prop. 8 in California you will see how I feel 5th amendment applies to the repealing of prop. 8.  But let us apply it to DADT.  Now unlike gay marriage with previous case law such as straight and interracial couples, there is not previous rulings that would guide this decision one way or another, that I know of.  But just like repealing prop. 8 it does violate the part about not being deprived of life liberty or property with due process of law.  Because gay are deprived of the life and liberty of serving in the military while being openly gay.  To some gays just like straights, to them the military may be their life and would want a career in the military.  Due proess is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law (from wikipedia) and this part of the 5th amendment of the constitution is violated by DADT.  It is because that this principle of law is that gays serving in the military is that all legal rights are owed to every person because serving in the military is not being afforded to people who are gay (bi, lesbian, etc.).  Therefore DADT, is unconstitutional.  According to the ruling, the 1st amendment is violated by DADT.  I can reasonably see the part about “….to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  I feel that that this is violated because supporters of gay rights that the government was never really readdressed this grievance against again an entire group of people who are just wanting to serve their country.

On different but somewhat practical note the article suggests that this is a threat towards national security.  Reason being that (especially) in a time of war and with our military being somewhat depleted with being in 2 wars that the military shouldn’t be picky of whom they let into the military.

I feel that DADT should be struck down for all the reasons that were stated above and that the military of all places because any person should be able to serve in the military of the country they love so dearly.  It should be struck down and not be in effect any longer.

Steve

Pages looked at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Amendments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100910/ap_on_re_us/us_gays_in_military

Hi all,

I read an article from Arizona’s news article online from AZCentral.com about the latest development from gay marriage and prop. 8 in California.

The main update really pertains that the Pro Prop 8 (prop 8 defenders/ supporters, the defendants in the January trial, etc.) side of the aisle during the trial are in fact appealing the decision, which is to be expected, had extended the block preventing gay marriage until roughly the New Year or so.  The motion was filed and the appeal process on this case is to begin on December 6, 2010.  They essentially ask “why rush until this is resolved?” and the block was extended.

As even stated that many top officials such as the state attorney (who was on the plantiff side arguing the case) as well as the govenator agreed with the Judge’s decision overturning the evil proposition.  To quote part of the article (giving some perspective to both sides), it says, “Plaintiffs’ lawyers and San Francisco city officials maintain the Proposition 8 campaign no longer has a legal right to even pursue an appeal to defend a state law that California’s top officials refuse to defend. In Monday’s court papers, Proposition 8 lawyers said it was particularly important for them to be allowed to appeal Walker’s ruling and defend the law when ‘elected officials refuse to do so.'”

I do feel that, as much as I disagree with it, that Prop. 8 supporters have every right to appeal this decision, but it isn’t necessary to block marriages of same sex couples until the decision has been made.  I feel that since the law that voters pass has been revoked and that Judge Walker did give a week for an appeal TO BE FILED, that same sex couples should be allowed to marry and whatever happens with the appeal’s decision should be taken care of then.  I do admit that the appeal’s decision to extend it has some logic in the sense, if the Judge Walker’s decision is appealled then no gay couple can marry, then nothing changes.  But I still strongly feel that gay couples should marry asap.

If you want to see my blog that I did for a class of mine from the Summer 2009 on the gay rights movement, look at lawandorderking.blogspot.com .

Steve

Source:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/08/16/20100816california-gay-marriage-ruling-appeals.html

Prop. 8 overturned

Hello everyone,

In this section, I will be talking some about the ruling in the Prop. 8 trial.  I will just be stating the section of the 14th amendment, how the ruling applies to that and my opinion on that section of the 14th amendment as well as the ruling.

The text that was cited in this regarding the “equal protection” section of the 14th amendment of the US constitution.  Of the few different sections, but the equal protection clause states”

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  –From wikipedia.com and US constitution

The main part of this ruling mainly comes from “….nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” as well as (IN MY OPINION) the part “…nor shall any  State deprive any person of life, liberty, property without due process of law…” .

From wikipedia due process is defined as “Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state.”

Meaning that the government is honor bound to see that all the rights of each (legal citizen obviously) are respected and are protected by due process.  With the ruling, as seen by his honor, U.S. District Judge Vaugh Walker, says that it violates the equal protection laws. In a the Fox News article that I looked at and echoed in a similar CNN article (and others), “‘Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,’ the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster.”

I do admit that I am a full supporter of gay rights, including marriage myself, so I am in agreement with his honor’s ruling on the subject.  I feel that Prop. 8 in California is discriminated against the GBLTQ community and making straights superior to the gay community.  It is depriving the gay community of liberty and a piece of life that straights have and seems to want such life and liberty preserved for them (whether or not all  straights feel the same way and there are many straight persons who support gay rights as well).  I feel that by not having the gay community the same privileges as straights you are not only abridging the privileges of the gay community you are also saying that straights are better just because of stupid excuses as straight relationships are traditional, natural, religion said so.  But face it, you are just saying that they are not equal, inhuman, and second class citizens.  It’s BS!

I had a class in the summer of 2009 looking at gay marriage/rights.  Please feel free to take a look:  lawandorderking.blogspot.com. Please feel free to comment here and there.

Steve

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/04/federal-judge-overturns-californias-sex-marriage-ban/

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T1