Logic errors

Here's the thing:

The US is not a theocracy. Therefore, anything you say that refers to God, or your Higher Being, or Christian Values, is automatically irrelevant to government policy/law discussions. That's all there is to it. I could go on and on about how my God requires me to do a number of things, but that would have no bearing on you. Capiche?

Legislating morals doesn't work. Regardless of what you think is right, you can't push to legally enforce those ideals on other people. We tried that in 1919. It lasted 14 years, and did not actually work in the interim. How many of us have heard of "bathtub gin" and Speakeasies? You can't legislate morals. It doesn't work, and it's inappropriate to try. Especially when those morals are based on religion. See point A.

Up until the Victorian Era, nobody cared what you did in your bedroom, as long as the line was preserved. You could have a "bastard" child (if you were a man), as long as you had a legitimate child as well. Marriage was a way of cementing alliances, not a loving relationship. The nuclear family is an imagining of modern Western civilization, and it is already beginning to unravel.

These are a few of the points that I've been wanting to yell at bigots for the past several months. I haven't gotten the opportunity to, unfortunately. Several weeks ago my school was visited by a Law Professor who spent her time on her soapbox advocating that all children be raised by "their biological mother and biological father", she herself being a child of divorce. She related the argument that the lgbt community should be able to marry the person they love with the fact that she loves her daughter, but she shouldn't be able to marry her. By the time I got up there, I was so horrified and down trodden that I could not restate my point to make them understand my question. The fact that they could not understand it made my point to me, but it might not have to the audience.

Minnesota currently has a law on the books stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. Yet there is a marriage amendment going up for vote this November to put this definition into the constitution.  All this does is further indoctrinate the idea of "traditional values" and limit the next generations access to change. Not having this pass changes nothing, and yet if it passes, it will take years for things to change back.
My question was "Why is it okay to have the older generation vote on something that does NOTHING but limit the choices of the younger generation, those we are supposed to be protecting".

I think it's an appropriate question. And I think I'm uniquely qualified to ask it, considering I won't be voting in the upcoming election. Because I can't. I won't be old enough. And yet I know what I would say if I could.

DOMA deportation

I don't know the exact numbers, but a lot of couples are separated each year by deportation. In the U.S. a person is allowed to apply for a green card as a spouse of a U.S. citizen. There are other ways to do so, but that is one of the easiest, as it is the easiest to prove. However, DOMA stops gay couples from doing so. Even if they are married legally, as thousands of couples are due to marriage laws in Iowa, Connecticut, New York, and what happened in California (Before Prop 8). Because green cards are issued by the federal government, and so receiving one is a federal benefit. And DOMA prohibits the federal government from giving marriage benefits to gay couples.

These People are married. Legally. Anthony is needed here. In the U.S. In San Francisco, with his husband, where they have made a home. And yet, he was denied a green card. He is legally married to a U.S. citizen. Tell me that isn't UNequal protection under the law.

I'm really grateful to DHS for their evolving policy, and I hope DOMA is done with soon. My heart is with the families affected by DOMA and other related policies.

I probably won't post for a couple of weeks, because I'm moving to college. However, once I get there I'm going to get involved with the QASU (Queer and Allied Student Union) and do some campaigning to help my home state with their Constitutional Problems. (MN, I'm looking at you) I'll probably update a lot more frequently after that.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Mohandas Gandhi
Love,
Wren

Profound love

As much as I want to start this off with something amazing and hopeful, I can't. There is so much love and hope in this world, but there is so much fighting against it, and I think attention needs to be brought to that. The DOMA, a 1996 law, disallows same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage benefits. That means that even if a couple is married legally in their state, they cannot file federal taxes jointly, or file for immigration benefits.

This is what happens when a couple is denied that right. That makes me so sad. But it shouldn't. It shouldn't make me sad, because what do sad people do? They cry. They become overwhelmed and they shut down. So It's not going to make me sad. It's going to make me mad. I am going to do whatever I have to to right this wrong in my lifetime. I never want to watch my kids go through that. I want to be able to look my children in the eye someday down the road and tell them that I, that WE, fought so hard so they don't have to. That they have the right to love who they want, and protect their loved ones.

So that is my call out for the day. We're going to fight for our right, and I think we're going to win. Because Jack's from the 51st century, and we may have a long way to get there, but we're going to. :D

We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. - Native American Proverb

And I intend on leaving the earth better than I found it.

Love,
Wren