Repealing DOMA

There is a great deal of hypocrisy  in the U.S. Congress of representatives consistently supporting civil rights and at the same time opposing the right of same-sex couples to marry, and of the LGBT community to experience their other constitutional rights.  Many site God as their homophobic reasoning, others refer to morals and tradition.

There is no moral requirement to get married.  There is nothing immoral about being gay and wanting to get married.  People of all races, religions, genders and sexual orientations can be immoral but only gay people are denied the right to marry.  Rapists and murderers can be married as long as the lovely person they are marrying is of the opposite sex. 

Many traditions of the past would be considered immoral in society today.  Traditions such as dueling and human sacrifice are no longer practiced because we grow and develop as a society and learn to question traditions and beliefs.  We should start a new tradition in America, equality for all. The Declaration of Independence says “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness clearly includes who you choose to marry.

Churches and other religious institutions can act according to their own beliefs and theologies; nobody is trying to interfere in their lives.  This is not a church or religious issue. Marriage is a civil issue, sadly defined as a legal union of one man and one woman, since the passing of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Despite my complicated love for President Bill Clinton, I have to mention that he, with a large majority of both houses of Congress, signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on September 21, 1996.  This law prevents the federal government from recognizing marriages of gay and lesbian couples, denying same-sex couples more than 1,100 federal benefits and protections including spousal survival benefits of gay military families and social security benefits.  Also, because of this law, gay couples cannot file joint federal income tax returns and take deductions and surviving gay spouses don’t have any protection from estate taxes. 

The law has been ruled unconstitutional in eight federal courts, including the first and second court of appeals.  The Obama administration communicated that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the act in Federal court and thankfully, in 2009 Bill Clinton said his past position on the issue was “wrong.”  “I think gay marriage is a good thing not a bad thing.  And I just realized that, I was, probably for, maybe just because of my age and the way I’ve grown up, I was wrong about that.”

Five cases are waiting on a response to review in the Supreme Court and the LGBT community is confident that the court will ultimately rule in favor of repealing the law.  The authors of the Defense of Marriage act introduced this unnecessary law to manufacture more hatred in this world.  The gay community has suffered enough discrimination and hopefully this senseless defining of marriage has only brought more awareness to the plight.

It's a Miss on Contraception

The argument is unclear in the blog entry by “Hit or Miss” titled “Against the Odds-Oral Contraceptives.” She attempts to make an argument about the controversial Obamacare contraceptive mandate, but provides the audience with no evidence to back her claims and clearly didn’t do any research on contraception use.

She believes that the “president and the government express concern over the importance to support free birth control pills to insulin or medical equipment,”  which would be a valid argument if not followed by “The citizens of the United States should not have to fund their promiscuous lives.”  I can only assume that she’s referring to women and not the president and the government.   
It’s hard for me to comprehend that a 21^st century woman with a family, like Hit or Miss, believes that only promiscuous women use birth control.  Liberate your mind Hit or Miss!!  Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and do some research on women’s issues before offering your negligent opinion.

Women use contraceptives for a variety of reasons including endometriosis, excessive bleeding, ovarian cysts, acne and the most common reason, family planning.  The latter is important to prevent pregnancies that occur too late or too early and to prevent a woman from having children too close together which can adversely affect the mother’s health and increase the risk of birthing a baby prematurely and with a low birth weight. 

According to Guttmacher Institute, more than 99% of women aged 15-44 who have had sexual intercourse have used a contraceptive method.  Their research also shows that more married than never been married, use contraceptives (79% vs. 39%) and 93% of married women, at risk of unintended pregnancies, use contraceptives. 

In her conclusion, Hit or Miss offers a solution.  She believes that our health care system needs to provide people with diabetes, hypertension and cancer medications and not be so concerned that “Horny Helen does not run out of birth control pills before she hits a fraternity house for a night of boozing and sex.”  Again, I’m dumbfounded.

Hit or Miss is grammatically deficient throughout her blog entry, as well as, in her knowledge on the subject of contraception.  I understand she was trying to argue that many life-saving drugs are not being mandated currently, while a contraceptive no co-pay is.  In my opinion, she didn’t relay this idea as well as she could have.  Nearly every American woman, regardless of age, religion, marital status or race, who has had sex, has used birth control.  Whether a woman is promiscuous or not, she should have access to affordable health care including contraceptives.  The spotlight should be more focused on the hypocrisy and inequality in how society views sexual activity and health of men and women.

 

Football in Congress

I loathe football.  So when I heard a couple weeks ago on the evening news that the NFL was a non-profit organization with a tax exempt status, I told my husband, to quote myself, "I'm going to take down the NFL and make them pay."  Of course, I said that prior to doing any actual research.  The amount of money that flows in and out of the NFL is dizzying, as is the U.S. tax code.
The IRS classifies the NFL as a 501(c)6 tax exempt non-profit which:
     Provides for the exemption of business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, boards of trade and professional football leagues, which are not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any shareholder or individual.
Is the NFL not organized for profit?  NFL revenue in 2011 was 9 billion dollars and the league paid 8 top executives over $53 million in salary and bonuses in 2009.  The "nonprofit" just signed a $2.3 billion deal with Pepsi.  The number that got my attention was the $1.62 million that the NFL paid on federal lobbying last year.  Not only has the NFL spent record numbers on lobbying congress, but other major football interest groups have also spent historically lofty amounts of money in recent years on lobbying.  These lobbyist negotiate with congress on many topics, including concussions, drug testing, Internet gambling, broadcast policies and maybe a new college playoff system.
Are these the issues that consume congress?  Representative Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., co-creator of the Congressional Collegiate Sports Caucus, defends the involvement of Congress on the issue of a playoff system, saying "Americans care about sports, and they care about fairness.  If something like this isn't fair, it is the prerogative of Congress, and its job, to address it and fashion remedies."
The right to petition government is one of our fundamental precepts and our country's founders wanted to have all interests competing in a free and open marketplace of ideas.  I'm not sure this is what James Madison had in mind, though.
Wouldn't congress's time be better used focusing on the social realities affecting our country such as; homelessness, poverty, increasing gun violence, hunger, racism, classism, sexism, our faulty prison system, unemployment and most importantly fixing public education especially among inner-city and low income youth.  Or closing loopholes and shutting down tax shelters that house "nonprofits" like the NFL and millionaires who don't want to pay taxes.  I don't know, maybe I just hate football.