The Speech tonight

Well, I watched the speech tonight. Actually very well written and presented, I think - and the applause was beautifully choreographed! And C-SPAN did a yeoman job of showing who was sitting and who was standing after every proclamation. I don't know what the other channels were doing at that time because, like cousin Dennis, I don't like talking heads.

On the other hand it was nothing that we had not already heard before - and it didn't seem to change anything. But then, what is expected of a State of the Union message to the American people - mia culpa?

I found it interesting that after the event when the Democratic response was being aired, our phone rang and it was a computerized query, obviously from the religious right, questioning our views on the President's speech - it went on and on. Surprisingly it disrupted the Democrat's programmed TV rebuttal while having to answer the phone and respond. Hmmmm....... Let no rock be unturned?

Perhaps the thing that bothers me the most is that when we are so divisive a people and our political ideologies are so different, that the act of attracting the dumbest amongst us is all it takes to win – really, is that what democracy is all about? It certainly leaves room for benign dictatorships and the divine right of kings, doesn't it? Food for thought!

Bit by bit....

[Bit by bit our nation, filled with bigotry, hatred and the gross misapplication of religion, is slowly being transformed into a nation of tolerance where the people collectively allow individuals to live their lives in peace and equal treatment under the law.

It is not a matter of whether we as individuals "like" the sexual practices of gay people. I personally shudder when I imagine the graphic details of gay sex (and often heterosexual conduct, too). But I also applaud when in this cold reality of isolation between the mental "I" and the mental "you", that any two people are able to achieve some modicum of bonding across the chasm.

This is not the legitimate business of religion simply because religion - especially Christian - has not earned the right to judge! As was pointed out to me by a devout Catholic recently, "...only God has the right to judge." - a tenet I don't support by the way. But if so, why does the church attempt to legislate morality, not promote freedom and leave judgement up to God? Could it be that many Christians really don't believe in God and wish to ‘purify' society in their own image?

As I understand it, the strength and appeal of Christianity is through the creation of a bond between the individual and his paternalistic, caring and sometimes wrathful God (if one considers the Old Testament as part of Christianity). How does that differ materially from the earthly bonding of any two people? ...AG]

Washington State OKs Gay Civil Rights Law

By RACHEL LA CORTE, Associated Press Writer

OLYMPIA, Wash. - Before he died of AIDS, the state's first openly gay lawmaker asked a friend for a promise: that he would keep working on gay civil rights legislation. That was more than a decade ago. Now, the legislation Cal Anderson championed, 30 years in the making, is about to become law.

"I remember the day that Cal told me he didn't have much longer to live," said Rep. Ed Murray, a Seattle Democrat and one of four openly gay lawmakers now in the Legislature. "One of the things he asked was if I would continue work on this bill."

On Friday, the Senate passed the legislation 25-23, with a lone Republican joining Democrats in voting in favor. The House approved it 61-37, and Democratic Gov. Christine Groggier said she would sign it Tuesday.

Murray was given a standing ovation when it passed the House, and colleagues surrounded gay lawmakers to congratulate them.

"History is going to look kindly upon the legislators who had the courage to vote for this," said Rep. Dave Upthegrove, who cried when the bill passed the House. "It's a great day for equality, for fairness."

First introduced in the 1970s, the measure adds "sexual orientation" to a state law that bans discrimination in housing, employment and insurance, making Washington the 17th state passing a law covering gays and lesbians. It is the seventh to protect transgender people.

Sen. Bill Finkbeiner was the only Senate Republican to endorse the measure. Two Democrats voted against it.

"We don't choose who we love. The heart chooses who we will love," Finkbeiner said. "I don't believe that it is right for us to say ... that it's acceptable to discriminate against people because of that."

The bill was amended by Republicans on the House floor to say that it would not modify or change state marriage laws. A Senate amendment added a caveat saying the state does not endorse "any specific belief, practice, behavior, or orientation."

Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, who voted against the bill, said it would "trample unrelentingly" on religious viewpoints that object to gays.

"We, the state, are telling people to accept, actually to embrace, something that goes against their religious views," he said.

The bill could still be challenged. Opponents have suggested pursuing a referendum, giving voters the option to overturn the measure. They would need about 112,000 signatures to get a referendum on a November ballot.

Gregoire said she would fight any effort to undo the law.

"I will fight any initiative, any referendum that tries to take back the equality these folks and others around our great state have been given today," she said.

Murray said he fully expects a battle at the ballot box, but asked opponents to consider one thing.

"Before you reach for a pen to sign an initiative to end our rights, call up somebody in your life who is gay or lesbian and talk to them about their reality, and then decide whether you want to pick up that pen," he said.

Anderson's partner of 10 years, Eric Ishina of Seattle, carried with him Friday a picture of Anderson with his Senate colleagues. Anderson fought for the bill for eight years before he died.

"I don't doubt that he's really smiling down on us right now," he said.

Ishina said Anderson knew that the law would eventually pass, saying: "Otherwise, he would not have kept fighting, year after year."

Judge Alito....

As we all learned in grade school, the Bill of Rights were ten amendments added to that framework which stated very simply various inherent rights of the people which government was forbidden to mess with. And then, of course, there were the other amendments added to the Constitution - especially those during and after the Civil War which provided freedoms to large groups of people who had been considered either property or at best second class citizens. In fact, my own grandmother didn't have the right to vote until just a few years before I was born. Yet she in the quiet wisdom of universal motherhood saw fit to have me sit on her lap in the 1936 re-election bid of FDR, to explain to me the options on the ballot before us at the precinct, put the pencil in my hand and ask me where I figured I should put the "X". I was five years old. The point is that the Constitution has been growing both directly and indirectly since its inception as a basic blueprint for a democratic government. Those who wish to revert to the original written word after over two hundred years of sociological and technological change are really "whistling Dixie!" Does anyone really believe that women shouldn't ‘have the vote' - and ever expect bedroom privileges in the future? Does anyone now believe that we can lawfully have slaves - even Mexican? Does anyone now believe that a person can not be allowed to vote because he can't even read, write or speak English? The differences between now and when the founding fathers created our Constitution are virtually astronomical. So when conservatives accuse the courts of ‘rewriting' the Constitution, my response is ‘wonderful!' The Supreme Court has done good! We are a freer and better off people than ever before in our history - and we owe a lot of that freedom to the Supreme Court. But first, lets consider the executive branch where we elect a President because he has some sort of charisma, the women like him, or he likes football, or is a hero or just isn't from New England - unless perhaps he inherits the job like either Truman or Johnson. We the people don't really know the man nor what he is going to do to us until we've elected him for four years! So in the case of the Presidency, we are dealing with a capricious ego maniac who wants to be the most powerful man in the world! Boy! That is certainly reassuring that we're going to have great leadership! Now, lets consider the Congress. Does our Congress ever pass a bill which hasn't been bought and paid for by special interests? Can we really believe a congressman who is willing to tell us whatever we want to hear? How many congressmen were there who were willing to impeach President Clinton for fooling around with women who were themselves fooling around with women (I think the number was at least eighteen officially known)? But, in general, our government muddles along passing good laws and screwy laws and good but inept laws - and sometimes it can't seem to get around to pass a law it needs to pass simply because it can't find enough sponsors or it is time for spring break, fall break, or perhaps it'll get in next year. Perhaps now you understand why we need a good, stable Supreme Court including especially the 9th Circuit! (Who else would take on God!) It really was in the province of the Congress to pass the legislative equivalent of Roe v. Wade which gives women (still America's second class citizens) the very limited right to determine what happens to their own bodies if they are pregnant? It is a simple fundamental right concerning "who owns your body, you or the state"? This involves both men and women and should be written in the Constitution for all citizens - until then, we are all slaves owned by the state which owns our bodies. Yet Congress could never field such a divisive subject - the religious community would never allow it amongst others! It took the Supreme Court in its very limited capacity to actually give women the small freedoms they now enjoy. The poor were finally allowed to have legal abortions performed by medical doctors rather than to drive needles into their own bodies and hope nature would do its job and that they'd live through it and not go to jail for murder. Does anyone really disagree with the rule of ‘one man, one vote' which was decreed by the Supreme Court? Congress would most certainly never have changed that any more than they will ever get rid of the Electoral College and so many other things which could actually make this nation into a democracy! Or, how about the racial integration of schools...? Does anyone seriously believe that the Congress of the United States would have had the guts to integrate the schools? It took the Supreme Court to do that! So how about the Alito confirmation? I'm sure he is just as they (and he) says he is - an experienced, objective judge of the law - honest, good family man, loves baseball, unassuming, quiet, and dedicated to interpreting the laws and precedents, as written, and very specifically not creative with respect to law. He has stated that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to write law but to simply monitor the Executive Branch and Congress to make certain they stay withing their Constitutional guidelines. He is very impressive in his memory of case histories - he has a remarkable mind. I'd trust him just as I trust my computer - they both are remarkable. So let me pose this question. If my assessment is not too far off regarding the Presidency of this nation - that it is primarily involved in people handling both here and abroad - and in making day-to-day decisions. And if Congress spends most of its time accommodating special interest groups - if they can afford to pay -- and would never tackle anything controversial which would cost votes for re-election. Just what branch of government do we need to rely on not only for justice but to also lead our culture into more enlightened times? I can think of many things that our society needs to address in justice and fairness to our citizens. I'm also certain that we can't rely on anything beyond creative justice from the Supreme Court to advance our society. I don't think that Alito, nice guy as he may be, is or would be able, to weigh in any more than my computeer would.