Yesterday in the Senate they voted on a legislation proposed by freshman senator 
Al Franken (D-MN) that would make it illegal for the government to give contracts to contractors abroad who have a clause in their hiring contracts that specifically says that applicant will not bring lawful suit if he or she is raped while on the job.
This comes as a direct result of a young 19 year old woman who was gang raped by co-workers while stationed in Iraq under the employ of one of Halliburton’s subsidiaries wanting to file a law suit for her gang-rape and could not. She did sign a pre-employment contract and it does say that she would not bring suit in a situation that she is raped, the company assumes no responsibilities, therefore she can’t sue her ex-employer.
The Senate vote was 30 Republican opposing it. What the Fuck? Are these people nuts? They voted swiftly against Acorn and all that was were a few employees advising persons posing as prostitutes (does the word entrapment ring a bell?) But rape, that is nothing, at least it represents their lack of concern for women’s issues and it also reflects on the general attitude of macho bravado that celebrates a woman getting what she deserves, otherwise she would be married and a housewife staying at home and not in Iraq.
Political commentators like Keith Ohlberman are accusing Senate Republicans of hypocrisy — and even outright support of rape — after thirty of them voted against a measure to de-fund military contractors who prevent rape victims from seeking justice. Sen. Al Franken introduced an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that would prevent the federal government from funding contractors whose employee contracts prevent workers from pursuing allegations of rape against co-workers. The measure passed the Senate by a vote of 68 to 30, with all 30 ‘no’ votes being cast by Republicans. Notably, 10 Senate Republicans voted for the measure, including all four female Republican senators. Franken was inspired to push the amendment by the story of Jamie Leigh Jones, who was an employee of KBR — at the time a subsidiary of Halliburton — working in Baghdad’s Green Zone when she was allegedly gang-raped by other KBR workers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More on Proposition 8
Today, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, in a bench ruling, is allowing a constitutional challenge to California's ban on same-sex marriage. The decision sets into motion a challenge on the constitutional denial of same-sex marriage to gay couples who cannot enjoy the same federal and state benefits heterosexual couples do without a single thought to this "right" that is denied others without rhyme or reason.
In his ruling, Judge Walker stated that a jury trial is the only way to be able to answer the unanswered questions as to whether or not gay and lesbians should be considered a persecuted minority and therefore, subject to judicial protections from discriminatory laws like gay-marriage bans.
Proponents of Prop 8 argue that Prop 8 is constitutional as the initiative rewrote the California Constitution to reflect that gay marriage is not a recognized as a right under the United States Constitutional protections. Opponents of Prop 8 argue that the 14th Amendment (also known as the equal protection clause) gives gays and lesbians those rights because the law of the land must be equally applied and interpreted as per the U.S. Constitution.
It is a small victory for LGBT people but a barrage of campaigning by the Evangelicals, Mormons and the extreme right wing douche bags is going to make the recent battle look like child’s play. Yes folks, the Culture Wars are here again.
For those who are religious, the now familiar adage “WHAT WOULD JESUS SAY?” comes to mind, here it is:
Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection men neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven."
-Mark 22:29-30
"Matrimony is outside church business. It is a governmental concern, hence up to the magistracy."
-Martin Luther, "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church"
While right wingers would have you believe that it is a matter of addressing claims that Proposition 8 supports religious freedom in America, since it actually does the exact opposite. Writing a particular group's religious ideas into secular law directly violates the Bill of Rights; and in the case of marriage laws, it also violates the teachings of Jesus himself as seen above.
Proposition 8's own language says that gay marriage shall be banned in the state of California. A ban, by definition, takes away freedom rather than expanding it. For in fact, many religious groups encourage and perform gay marriages as part of their custom.
One man and one woman is, in fact, not really the "traditional" definition of marriage at all. The word "marriage" has been applied to same-sex couples since the time of the Roman Empire.
The image to the right is from the Monastery of Saint Catherine, and depicts Christ presiding over the marriage of two men who were early Christian Saints. Indeed, same-sex marriages were common in the early church until they were banned by the emperor Constantine in 324. For almost 300 years of Christian history, the period closest to the life of Christ himself, gay couples were included in the traditional Christian definition of marriage.
The Passion of SS. Serge and Bacchus
You might be surprised to find out that for many years, the Society of Friends (Quakers) has performed same-sex marriages. Quakers have often appeared at the forefront of social change. Just as Quakers abolished slavery within their communities long before the Emancipation Proclamation, so have many Quaker meetings recognized committed gay relationships as marriages in advance of our nation's courts.
Likewise, the Metropolitan Community, All Saints, and Episcopal churches all advocate gay marriages as acceptable to God and perform them as part of their religious custom. How does Proposition 8 defend the religious freedom of these groups, as its supporters claim?
As I mentioned in the last post, Mormon and Roman Catholic groups contributed a combined $35.8 million in political lobbying to support Proposition 8. This money was not taxed, due to claims that the groups were using the money for "charity".
A partisan political campaign is not a charity. If the money in the collection plate is used to finance lobbying activity, then an organization is not really a "church" by the legal definition at all: it's a Political Action Committee with a steeple on the roof. These groups lied to the IRS and the American people, claiming millions in tax-exemptions for charity while not actually performing any charitable work. They should have to pay taxes on this money, along with all relevant interest and penalties, so that this public money can be given to legitimate churches who are doing good work in the community for real.
No election is fair when one side has to pay taxes while the other doesn't. Simply putting the label "church" on a building doesn't make it a charity if political campaigning is going on inside. While in my mind they continue to be monuments to superstition and ignorance, they are nothing more than a very lucrative business, not unlike a movie theater that brings in people who pay an admission fee and they are entertained for an hour or so.
0 comments:
Post a Comment