Real Family Values

In recent weeks, Chick-Fil-A and it's owner have come under fire for emphatically stating that the food chain and its owners are against same-sex marriage and, as a result, the chain has donated over $4 million total, over 3+ years to organizations and conservative politicians who oppose same-sex marriage. Almost immediately, a back-lash ensued with gay rights organizations and civil rights activists calling for a boycott of the chain.

In response, Evangelical Christians are reportedly staging a Support Chick-Fil-A Day, in which churches are asking their congregations to spend as much as they feel called to spend in support of biblical marriage, in support of Chick-Fil-A, and in support of Mr. Cathy himself.

Here is where I feel that they have lost. If traditional family values are so important to conservatives, why waste that money supporting any corporation? Why not take that money and buy a poor family some groceries? Or pay their utility bill? Or buy their kids some school supplies? But instead, they will spend their money giving a multi-million-dollar corporation and its millionaire owner more money so that the chain and its owner can donate more to other large wealthy organizations who all are against the civil rights of others.

Therefore, I am calling on everyone I know to take a different stand. I ask that you not only boycott Chick-Fil-A for its homophobic discriminatory stance and its practice of donating millions to hate-organizations, but also ask that you DO something positive with the money you save. I would ask that you seek out a poverty-stricken family and show them what it really means to have traditional family values---no matter what that family looks like. Today's family may be interracial, same-sex, unmarried, but how they look or who they love is not what makes them a family. A family is a unit that works together, lives together, loves each other, struggles together, grows together, changes together, and blossoms together. 

So let's help each other! Buy them some groceries, or pay a bill, or get them some clothes or school supplies. And afterwards, take a picture and post it here (click here) as a pictorial journal. You can write a short piece with some details, or you can post a video--be as simple or as creative as you like. But let's DO something positive to show what real family values are about!

Also, please check out the awesome, smart blog that my friend, Jennifer Roy, writes!

http://nothingwithaface.com/

Same Sex Marriage

mar·riage [ márrij ]


legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners

specific marriage relationship: a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse

joining in wedlock: the joining together in wedlock of two people

Synonyms: nuptial, wedding, bridal, matrimonial, marital, conjugal, connubial

See full definition · Encarta World English Dictionary
 
In this definition, does it anywhere state "between a man and a woman"? No! It states, "between two people", the "joining together of two people", "sexual and domestic partners"! So why have states decided to include discrimination in their own definitions of marriage?
 
For many, this is a religous matter. They believe that marriage is a religious institution and that, if gays are allowed to marry, the institution of marriage will be irreparably harmed. Many religious leaders fear having to preside over gay marraige, against their belief-system. They also hold beliefs that children reared in same-sex homes are not given the benefits of living with a parent of opposite sex or same sex, as be the case. And most fearful of all, opponents of equal marriage rights fear that same-sex relationships will be promoted in public schools, brainwashing the next generation of young people into either becoming gay or accepting a lifestyle they find abhorrant!
 
Here is how I feel about those arguments:
 
1) Marriage is not a religious institution in regard to US law.. it is a contractual agreement between two consenting adults. If it were a religious institution, exclusively, then people of NO faith or bi-faith couples would not be allowed to marry either and would be subject to Civil Unions. This is not the case anywhere in the US.
 
2) The institution of marriage is not harmed by the sex of the adults consenting to the union; I would argue that it is harmed by the actions of the two: adultery, abuse, lack  of respect, financial ineptitude, etc. have been the leading causes for divorce in America, and the rates of divorce have increased over the last 50 years as we realize that we don't have to put up with adultery, abuse, lack of respect, etc. etc. The biggest threat to the institution of marriage is the cavalier attitude that many take before entering the contract!
 
3) Religious leaders will not be forced to preside over gay marriages if they choose not to. This type of force goes against our own constitution and would most certainly be overturned if anyone tried to pass such legislation! As it currently stands, religious leaders do not have to marry "unequally yoked" couples (bi-faith couples), athiests, etc. They dont even have to marry couples who do not attend their own church, even if they follow the same denomination! I know this to be true as I tried to find someone to preside over my own marriage 14 years ago! I called every church in the phone book and the only person who would marry us was a retired Unitarian Universalist! My husband and I were, and are, bi-faith.. at that time, I was Christian and my husband was athiest. Today, I am Buddhist and my husband remains athiest. If we were unable to find someone to preside over our wedding, we would have been forced to go before the Justice of the Peace at the courthouse, when I wanted to be married outdoors. I am so thankful to the UU pastor that agreed to marry us!!
 
4) Children are currently being raised in same-sex homes, regardless of the institution of marriage, and that won't end! What I think is a much greater risk for children is to be raised in an abusive home, not a same-sex home! Children of same-sex families that are loving, caring, and provide for their physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual needs are just fine to me!
 
5) Public school curriculum is set by state school boards. We have seen sex education being legislated differently across the states, where some include safe sex information, pregnancy avoidance, and abstinance education; whereas others stubbornly maintain the failed abstinance only curriculum. I believe that any sort of same-sex relationship curriculum would follow the states-rights path, and that any attempt to teach tolerance of same-sex relationships in schools would spark much debate and controversy. But just imagine, for a moment, our schools teaching tolerance! One can hope...
 
6) Finally, I firmly believe in our constitution. And our constitution guarentees us individual rights that even a majority of discriminatory views cannot continue to deny a minority group. Our constitution also guarentees us religious freedoms, and inherent in that right is the freedom from religion. And our constitution separates church (religious ideology) from state (government and law). Therefore, as a free nation, we cannot continue to deny the rights of certain individuals all of the benefits that the contract of marriage grants to other individuals!
 
What do you think? Where do you fall on this subject?

Return to the Illegal Immigration Debacle

Even though there are more pieces of legislation to look at, I wanted to take a moment to return to the illegal immigration debate. There are some facts that people need to be aware of. Below, I have 3 sources for additional research, and 1 just for a laugh (gotta love Jon Stewart!) 

First, it is important to note that President Obama has asked the US Department of Justice to review the law Arizona passed to determine if it violates constitutional law. I believe they will find that it DOES. The reason is simple, it uses institutional racism to racially discriminate. I found a great website that defines these terms:

Race

All human beings belong to a single species and share a common origin. They are born equal in dignity and rights and all form an integral part of humanity. All peoples of the world possess equal faculties for attaining the highest level in intellectual, technical, social, economic, cultural and political development. The differences between the achievements of the different people are entirely attributable to geographical, historical, political, economic, social and cultural factors. Such differences can in no case serve as a pretext for any rank ordered classification of nations or peoples.
Source: "Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice" adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Article I

Racism

Is any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally.
Source: US Civil Rights Commission

Institutional Racism

A system of procedures/patterns in all walks of life, i.e. education, housing, businesses, employment, professional associations, religion, media, etc., whose effect is to perpetuate and maintain the power, influence and well-being of one group over another. It originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society; and thus receives far less public condemnation than does individual racism. Although more subtle than individual racism, it is more destructive of humanity.
Sources: Various Publications

Racial Discrimination

To treat differently a person or group of people based on their racial origins. Power is a necessary precondition, for it depends on the ability to give or withhold social benefits, facilities, services, opportunities etc., from someone who should be entitled to them, and are denied on the basis of race, colour or national origin.
Sources- The Ideology of Racism

Looking at these definitions, this is clearly a case of discrimination based solely on race and national origin. The bill states that law enforcement is required to stop anyone suspected of being illegal, but when asked what those criteria are, no one can answer that.. or they won't answer that! In fact, Arizona state officials have recently requested assistance from the federal government in identifying what an illegal immigrant looks like.

This bill also infringes on Arizonans civil rights. The bill states that, "A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States." This opens anyone, not just Hispanics, to unlawful detainment. And those who cry foul have no recourse, since law enforcement who enforce this law "...be indemnified by his or her law enforcement agency for all reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees." In other words, the average American citizen will be taking on the entire police force and the state of Arizona in any legal claim, and all of their accompanying resources, moneys, and legal representation. 

In addition, this bill also violates the Supremecy Clause of the constitution which "... gives the federal government exclusive power to regulate our borders, and with very few exceptions, states are not free to create their own laws regulating immigration," the Arizona ACLU stated.  

Another problem with this law is with the writers, themselves. The main writer is Sen. Russell Pierce who has been photographed with a known neo-Nazi, hugging. Another writer is Chris Kobach, who is a member of a group who has made white supremicist remarks, funded racist research concerning race and intelligence in an effort to prove white superiority. One may argue that these individuals are only guilty by association; however, this bill proves that they are guilty as charged - racists white supremicists.
 
Please folllow my links below and feel free to comment.
 
Knowledge is power, and power used appropriately can lead to humanity and compassion of all human beings!


 
reader supported news
world news
the daily show
the rachel maddow show
phoenix new times