Honoured To Serve Our Country; Forced To Not Live Freely

The most recent update, (Source: Washington Blade) has most people clamoring the isles of the United States Capitol with anticipation as it was announced, that, on the 23rd of this month the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee will begin to hear testimony by Military members and other on the effects of the 1993 "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) Policy. According to other news reports this will be the first time in over fifteen years that the actual policy undergoes an evaluation process. Some of the more notable witnesses invited to testify are: former Marine Corps Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, who is gay and the first Service member wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and former Air Force Captain Cholene Espinoza, a lesbian. In the same week that the Congressional policy review and oversight was announced four retired Generals issued their findings on this historically discriminative policy with some outstanding results.

Ex-US generals want gays to serve openly
By Karin Zeitvogel

Four former US generals have joined a growing call to end a policy barring homosexuals from openly serving in the military, after a study showed it was out of step with the times and harming the armed forces. The retired officers from the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps found in a year-long study that the 15-year-old policy, which allows gays to serve in the military only if they do not reveal their homosexuality, "is not working."

"The military is losing critical talent and it's requiring some members to serve with a unique disadvantage in that they can't be honest with their peers," Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow at the Michael D. Palm research center in California, which commissioned the study, told AFP on Tuesday. The Pentagon policy -- called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- is mandated by a congressional statute passed under president Bill Clinton in 1993 and replaced a blanket ban on homosexuals serving in the military. The "Don't Ask" part of the policy means military recruits can no longer be questioned about their sexual orientation; "Don't Tell" means that, as long as they don't reveal their homosexuality, through words or actions, they may continue to serve.

[... edited 5 ip ....]

Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith insisted that sexual conduct, not sexual orientation, was the criterion on which gay service members could be excluded from the military. "The law establishes the basis for separation from the armed forces as conduct, not orientation. Our policy reflects the law, ie no military member is discharged due to his or her sexual orientation," Smith said in a statement emailed to AFP... the Pentagon will "follow congressional direction on homosexual conduct."

The study indicated otherwise.

"According to a report prepared by the Government Accountability Office, nearly 800 people with skills deemed 'mission-critical' by the Pentagon have been dismissed" under the policy, it said. The study also found that around 1,000 men and women were discharged from the military each year as a direct result of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and that "3,000 would likely have stayed in the military if they could have served openly."

(source: AFP 9th July, 2008) via Yahoo! News

Another random poll (unfortunately with a really small sample of constituents) by the Washington Times and American Broadcasting Company News Service reported on two days ago finds that 75% of Americans feel that said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the United States Armed Forces. The survey also revealed some other interesting numbers.

• Support from Republicans has doubled over the past 15 years, from 32 to 64 percent.
• 8 in 10 Democrats and more than 3/4 of independents now support the idea
• 57% of white evangelical Protestants now support allowing openly gay service members in the military
• 82% of white Catholics support so as well.
  
• 80 percent of those with no declared religious affiliation too.
• 8 in 10 women support allowing openly gay soldiers, and nearly two-thirds of men do too

When Army Sergeant Darren/Daniel Manzella, a medical liaison for his division, was is in Kuwait on his second deployment of the Iraq war. He spoke to 60 Minutes without permission told his story about how he came out in order to stop harassing messages and was subsequently told your not gay enough was finally discharged recently by the Pentagon under uncertain reasons 6 months after the original story aired.



Lastly after two recent Federal Appeals Court Decisions one in the Ninth District, which was reported previously on F6, and another more recent decision out of the First District in Boston, Massachusetts, which put a curb on the previous Courts ruling and finding of facts. Their decision in Cook v. Gates stated that, while they "agreed with the idea that the military should do more than prove homosexuality to warrant dismissal" must still consider that "in the end, that ensuring national security outweighs arguments from 12 former military members who say their rights were ignored when they were dismissed for being gay.", said Jim Lobsenz, an Attorney in the previous 9th District case for Margaret Witt v. Department of the Air Force. Both of these cases have the Military Chiefs and Administration officials scrambling for cover and attempting to keep a lid on everything. These two cases alone are enough to push DADT to a Constitutional Judicial and Congressional Review next year. In a heartfelt showdown of ideals versus practical realities, just three weeks ago Stars And Stripes issued a d facto warning to all Service members to "stay in the closet, or else!"

F6 RESOURCES:

+ Soldier Who Came Out on "60 Minutes" Booted by Andy Humm
Gay City News 03 July 2008
+ 60 Minutes: Is Military More Tolerant Of Gay Members In Wartime?
Hosted by Leslie Stahl
Produced by Karen M. Sughrue
16th December 2007
+ Zachary Denver has awesome commentary using the infamous You Tube Republican debates earlier this year along with the 60 Minutes story footage it is hilarious towards the last minute and a half and as a whole is worth the viewing.
+ Johann has a You Tube Channel and a MySpace Group
+ Andrew Sullivan offers review of the Sergeant Manzella story and some commentary in this December post @ The Daily Dish

F6 LINKS: Articles on Gays In The Military | Links re Gays In The Military |

Putting The Carriage Before Marriage In California

As a rule, I don't comment on current events until they have had a little time to settle. Especially when the issues come from partisan pandering or the law. By setting up this rule of a cooling off period, F6's commentary is based not on an emotional or zealous response but a little more information and analysis, by both qualified interpretation and incompetent buffoons alike. I get the pleasure of throwing down some other concerns or queries that everyone else has ignored or over looked, which then put the issues into a new light that will either stir up more controversy or piss everyone off. I, much like Oscar Wilde, await such responses with anticipation and receive them freely with gratitude. The rest of my commentary is towards the end and there are some cross blog links that I though you all might find interesting at the bottom of the page. On a secondary note, there are no pictures on this post.

So first, a case law review: What exactly did happen in California this week?

The California Supreme Court was ruling a combination of six cases from back in 2004 and 2005 that had trounced through and were delayed in the normal judicial reviews and pathways of the legal system for over three plus years. These cases still had remaining questions that had not been raised or resolved in the original findings by the Court regarding the February 2004 San Francisco Gay Marriage Protest in which, Mayor Gavin Newsom began an act of civil disobedience. The Court later ruled "concluding that the City officials had exceeded their authority in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the absence of a judicial determination that the statutory provisions limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman are unconstitutional, and further concluding that the approximately 4,000 same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco prior to our March 11, 2004, order were void and of no legal effect.", (Lockyer vs. City and County of San Francisco).

So that makes this not at all a sudden drastic decision on the Courts part. This was the normal course of review to clean up the remaining cases from a group of incidents which could not be resolved by the decision in the original case which was brought by the Attorney General. The "new cases" asked a "substantive constitutional question" and due to the nature of preexisting laws on the books in California made the establishment unique to other precedents or legislative schemes not applicable to these particular other cases across the country. "These (other State and Appeal Courts), often by a one-vote margin, have ruled upon the validity of statutory schemes that contrast with that of California, which in recent years has enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation under which a same-sex couple may enter into a legal relationship that affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple. Past California cases explain that the constitutional validity of a challenged statute or statutes must be evaluated by taking into consideration all of the relevant statutory provisions that bear upon how the state treats the affected persons with regard to the subject at issue."

The path of judicial review is established; becomes necessary for the Supreme Court to review

a. On April 13, 2005, the superior court issued its decision on this substantive constitutional question.... the superior court confined its decision to the challenge that was based upon the equal protection clause... ultimately concluding that the statutory limitation of marriage to the union of a man and a woman not only does not satisfy the strict scrutiny standard, but also does not meet the more deferential rational basis test because, the differential treatment mandated by the statute does not further any legitimate state interest. In light of this conclusion, the court held that California's current marriage statutes are unconstitutional under the state Constitution insofar as they limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

b. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, in a two-to-one decision, reversed the superior court's ruling on the substantive constitutional issue, disagreeing in a number of significant respects with the lower court's analysis of the equal protection issue a right to same-sex marriage (without established precedent). Second, rejected that the California marriage statutes discriminate on the suspect basis of sex but rather permit members of either gender to marry only a person of the opposite gender. Third, sexual orientation does not constitute a suspect classification for purposes of the state equal protection clause.

The majority thus concluded that, the marriage statutes survives rational basis review, reasoning that the state has a legitimate interest in preserving the traditional definition of marriage and that the statute's classifications are rationally related to that interest. The concurring justice observed that in her view, "The nuance at this moment in history is that the institution(s) are distinct and, we hope, equal. We hope they are equal because of the great consequences attached to each. To the degree that any committed relationship provides (those consequences) it is entitled to respect. Whether it must be called the same, or supported by the state as equal to the traditional model, only time and patient attention to the models at issue will tell."

The third appellate court justice dissented from the majority's determination that the marriage statutes do not violate the California Constitution. The dissenting justice (1) disagreed that the same-sex couples challenging the marriage statutes are seeking recognition of a novel constitutional right to "same-sex marriage" rather than simply the application of an established fundamental constitutional right to marry a person of one's choice, (2) sexual orientation should be considered a suspect classification for purposes of equal protection principles, and (3) finally concluded that the challenged statutory restriction limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples "has no rational basis, let alone a compelling justification."

What the Court asked? How the Court ruled?

"Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a "marriage" whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a "domestic partnership."

The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.... (and) whether the difference in the official names of the relationships (marriage vs. domestic partnerships) violates the California Constitution. As explained hereafter, the determination whether the current California statutory scheme relating to marriage and to registered domestic partnership is constitutionally valid implicates a number of distinct and significant issues under the California Constitution:

"Whom has the right to marry"

1. The nature and scope of "the right to marry"... we conclude that, under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish -- with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life -- an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own -- and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family -- constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

2. The Attorney General, observing that fundamental constitutional rights generally are defined by substance rather than by form, reasons that so long as the state affords a couple all of the constitutionally protected substantive incidents of marriage, the state does not violate the couple's constitutional right to marry simply by assigning their official relationship a name other than marriage. Because the Attorney General maintains that California's current domestic partnership legislation affords same-sex couples all of the core substantive rights that plausibly may be guaranteed to an individual or couple as elements of the fundamental state constitutional right to marry, the Attorney General concludes that the current California statutory scheme relating to marriage and domestic partnership does not violate the fundamental constitutional right to marry embodied in the California Constitution.

3. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple's constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution. Furthermore, the circumstance that the current California statutes assign a different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples as contrasted with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause. In analyzing the validity of this differential treatment under the latter clause, we first must determine which standard of review should be applied to the statutory classification here at issue. Although in most instances the deferential "rational basis" standard of review is applicable in determining whether different treatment accorded by a statutory provision violates the state equal protection clause, a more exacting and rigorous standard of review -- "strict scrutiny" -- is applied when the distinction drawn by a statute rests upon a so-called "suspect classification" or impinges upon a fundamental right.

4. As we shall explain, .... we conclude that strict scrutiny nonetheless is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents -- like gender, race, and religion --a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple's fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple. Under the strict scrutiny standard, unlike the rational basis standard, in order to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest.

We came to the conclusion

Applying this standard to the statutory classification here at issue, we conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California's current marriage statutes -- the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage -- cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest. A number of factors lead us to this conclusion.

First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples.

Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.

Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples.

Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise -- now emphatically rejected by this state -- that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

COMMENTARY: How will this landmark case effect laws in Indiana or across the Country?

It is also important to note that like Texas, California was originally a very long time ago was an Independent Republic and not always a State or Territory of the United States. The Constitution, the legal mind set, and cultural roots of Hawaiians, Californians, and Texans is uniquely distinct from that of most Americans. These cases besides the query of Equal Access/Protection Under The Law is more about what type of Judicial Review applies either a "Rational Basis" or "Strict Scrutiny". Legal precedents and established law have had three plus years to accumulate between the original cases and this particular judicial review by the highest Court of California. As reported by F6 last August, the Ninth Federal Circuit Court issued a broad definition for a person's social associations based on unchanging or undeniable characteristics that are inherent to membership in the group as protected under the Constitution of the United States of America as a stable minority classification.

The precedent of either decision will not have stability in Indiana until the precedent is affirmed either by the State or Circuit Courts here or the Supreme Court of the United States. This is also a landmark victory both for and against Federalism/State Rights versus The People under the enumerated powers of the 9th Amendment to the Constitution. However it also reopens questions and provides a challenge specifically to the United States Congress to certain pundits dismay under the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) as well as the Duties of the States under the Full Faith and Credit (Article 4, Section 1) Clause, like the Tenth Circuit's Oklahoma Gay Adoption Case, (Finstuen v. Crutcher (pdf)), amongst others.

While the case at issue was specific the precedent established holds application in the State of California. However to the dismay of all citizens and Legislatures, it looks as if the Supreme Court of the United States will have to rule on some of these cases eventually. Why? you ask. Because, at least with a layman's interpretation of the rulings, there are now unanswered questions in both Federal and State Courts decisions regarding Title 9 compliance - at least at the State level, as pointed out in number four above: "the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we (The California Supreme Court) conclude represents -- like gender, race, and religion --a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment"; with strict scrutiny.

As much as people wish to bitch about "judges legislating from the bench" which is easy for a rhetoric debate. They forget that it really is a bottom-up review process before it becomes a top-down application. The review by the judiciary starts at the local level. As President James Madison said so eloquently "In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority." is the purpose of the rule of law in this country having supremacy unto or by no one else, even "We The People". As the Justices said in their decision: "Whatever our views as individuals with regard to this question as a matter of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to limit our consideration of the question to a determination of the constitutional validity of the current legislative provisions."

This is the reason why, as a Libertarian, I believe government should get out of regulating marriage all together, allowing consenting adults to form their own contractual bondings, as their individual selves, under the review of the courts, the way it was intended in the first place.

SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVE THOUGHTS ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY DECISION:

1. Hold The Champagne
by Jonathan Rauch
Independent Gay Forum

2. On Differing from my Gay Peers on Marriage Ruling
by West
Gay Patriot

3. Where Kurt is King
by Bil Browning
BILERICO Indiana

4. The Reasoning of the CA Supreme Court
and her prelude review
Sitting Around Waiting for the CA Supreme Court to Rule
by Ellen Andersen
BILERICO

5. The Libertarian Party of California's Official Statement
by Chairman Kevin Takenaga
Third Party Watch

I know. I am running behind the times! County Government?

The discussion is what the Commission On Local Government has to say about County Government.

"County governments should be led by a single county executive and a stronger county council, to whom professionally qualified administrators should report and be accountable. Create a clearer, more accountable structure with fewer elected officials. Better coordinate public safety services."

1. Establish a single-person elected county chief executive.

2. Establish a single, unified legislative body for county government. Expand legislative membership to ensure sufficient representation for included rural, suburban and urban populations.

I actually don't have as much of an issue with this as I thought I would. The only problem I could foresee would be making sure that everyone in the county felt represented on the county council and the only way to solve that would be to make the council districts respective to the townships (eg: one seat per township minimum) with certain modifications of a second seat for population counts in certain ones like Wayne, Washington, Aboite, St. Joesph, and Adams Townships (they encompass Fort Wayne and New Haven). In Allen County that would give us a twenty five seat council minimum. Then of course the City government would feel left out and God forbid if we ever fully went to a unigov system because every other city and town would be throwing a temper tantrum about not being heard at all or the fact that they were now part of Fort Wayne.

3. Transfer the responsibility for administering the duties of the county auditor, treasurer, recorder, assessor, surveyor, sheriff and coroner to the county executive. Transfer the varied duties of the clerk to the courts, to the county election board and to the county executive. Establish objective minimum professional qualifications and standards for certain county administrative functions.

Now this is where I am going to clash with this report whole heartedly and as boisterously as Saint Augustine's swine (St Jerome). Certain of these elected positions are not just office positions they are a political checks and balances that were established for a reason and should not be fucked with no matter what may sound efficient and responsible for the future.

How many people are aware that the Coroner is the only one who can arrest and remove from office the Sheriff or County Prosecutor? He is the Chief Medical Officer of the County; much like the charachters of Drs. Leonard Horatio McCoy, Beverly Crusher, Katherine Pulaski, Julian Subatoi Bashir, and The EMH Doctor (ST: OS, TNG(2), DS9, and VYGR,) of the STAR TREK sagas. You knew I would have to throw one reference in somewhere, right?

These positions are suppose to be the publics way of achieving a balance of power within the County by putting people of trust and honor in "lesser" positions in order to watch over the public interest as a whole and keep the main players in balance. Plus the last thing we need is to reverse that law that was already established to limit a Sheriff's term in office to twice consecutive terms. If the position is appointed someone could retain the office for decades. Second as it is the Sheriff's Constitutional Authority to confine and enforce and serve the courts the Sheriff is also the one who balances overzealous County Prosecutors and Legislatures by ordering the non enforcement of incorrect laws or burying of warrants until they can be mediated.

Certain positions like Surveyor, Auditor, Recorder, and Treasurer I can see being made Executive appointments; however the Assessor's position, should still be a retained elected Executive Office holder.

By appointing any of these main positions rather than allowing the voter to choose you are making government no longer either we, by, or for the people, and in essence allowing one person to bring in whom ever they choose that isn't executive it is dictatorial. If this part of the plan is ramrodded threw the General Assembly, like Governor Daniels likes to do, it should at least be modified so that the modified per Township County Council has to approve by Major Majority all appointments and require only a Minor Majority to impeach either the single County Commissioner and his appointments or all other elected and appointed positions within the County proper.

Leave the Clerk of Courts alone (*channeling Chris Crocker, not really*). Most County Election Boards are either overwhelmed or incompetent and sometimes both.

4. Retain a local government role for property tax assessment under a county assessor who is required to meet professional qualifications and appointed by the county executive.

The Assessor's position, should still be a retained elected Executive Office holder who is then responsible for all appointed (jointly with the County Commissioner) Township Assessors. The County Assessors are responsible for how much each of us pay in property taxes and there needs to be someone at the top of local government that the people choose. Again it goes back to a checks and balance both politically and for the people. The County Assessor should also be the Chair of the County Tax Levy Board in my honest opinion.

5. Create a county wide body to oversee the provision of all public safety services.

This one could get just a little tricky because that also encompasses fire safety which falls under Township jurisdiction not just city government. And I think I will make a separate post about this because the young men and women whom volunteer with fire, medical, and first responder services are very dear to my heart. I have not a problem with having a County Board on oversight, general administration, and purchasing power improvements; but services and the ability for an average citizen to still be able to serve, needs to be considered above any generalized or definitive improvement towards administration. The city departments need to bring back volunteers and first responders. The State needs to give permission for all VFF, EMT, and FR the permission to burn both red and blue or red and green as well as the use of sirens.

(*Insert silently homosexual innuendos*)

6. Consolidate emergency public safety dispatch by county or multi-county region. Require that new, local emergency communications systems be compatible with the Project Hoosier SAFE-T statewide 800 MHz communications system.

DUH!!! Should have been done already *edits slurs* IDIOTS!!!

7. Transfer the responsibility for all funding of the state’s trial court system to the state, including public defenders and probation.

The Libertarian Party of Allen County's Secretary, Douglas Horner, is a Fugitive Recovery Agent and a licensed Bail Bondsman in the State has some interesting thoughts on that so I will defer with conjunction to his comments if he ever writes them out. One of the biggest issues I have is that the crime equity is not balanced across the State and there should be a level list of fines and responsibilities for each particular offense of the penal code that applies across the board. Also judges and prosecutors need to stop with frivolous fines and judgments and quit screwing people up the ass without the benefit of lube or a reach around for a simple mistake, temporary moments of stupidity, or just bad luck. The courts have lost a personal touch and need to be smacked around a little, like having their slush fund taken out from underneath.

One major additional note that I have been bitching on about for years which recently has received some more press and scrutiny: Judges or anybody else in the "judicial system" and their immediate family should be banned from having ownership in any company (AADP?) that provides services to the citizens by court order. That is a major conflict of interest and a violation of unreasonable sentencing which also borders on cruel and unusual punishment (sometimes before even a conviction in the case of juveniles), all in the name of a profit margin, that is WRONG!!! *!!!blows!!!steam!!!out!!!of!!!ears!!!* It is time for this callous blister in Fort Wayne to be shut down once and for all and never used ever again.
Further information: (JG article) (Website)(MySpace)(You Tube)

8. Move the funding of child welfare from counties to the state.

Well since they are already planning on doing a privatization plan anyway and taking away the local offices and mount the corruption of services provided to the hilt, you might as well take over the financing as well. While you are at it, please remove the policy in the Code which allows for illegal immigrants to file for benefits without being documented and forwarded to the Bureau of Citizenship Immigration and Naturalization for review. They should be taken into custody and processed for becoming citizens, not given benefits without legal standing!

[Editor's Note:]

This is just the beginning of my ramblings. I need to take a moment and give Charles M. Langley a nod for providing the AADP commentary on his blog AD FONTES. There will be further updates to this post as I continue to read the report from the COLG and develop further ideas and thoughts on these very complex issues and recommendations. Stay Tuned.

Discrimination In Dallas

In Dallas, a Hip-Hop Plea: Pull Your Pants Up

Morning Edition, October 24, 2007 · Saggin' — young men wearing their pants with the waistband closer to their knees than their hips — has been around for years. But a growing number of adults are deciding they've had enough. In Dallas, an interesting mix of politicians, hip-hop artists and white businessmen are announcing a citywide campaign with a simple message: Pull Your Pants Up.

Deputy Mayor Dwaine Caraway's work life usually involves economic development, crime, housing-code enforcement and stray dogs. But the drumbeat of anger from South Dallas, the predominately black part of town, got so loud that Caraway decided to take a little detour into law enforcement work — fashion police.

"This is not just a teenage problem," Caraway says. "There are people sagging ... in their 30s. You know, where's your mind? You're not a teenager."

Caraway says that at first, saggin' was about showing your boxers. Then it was about showing more of your boxers. Then dirty boxers were cutting edge. And now there are guys walking around with no boxers on at all.

"You have some folks that don't even have on underwear, period," he says. "And who's to say what the generation that's looking at this generation will do after these guys?"

Two weeks ago, Caraway called a news conference and proposed a new saggin' ordinance. Unfortunately for Caraway, lawyers then called with some potentially bad constitutional news. So Caraway backed off a bit on the legal front, but he didn't give up.

"The No. 1 mission is very simple: pulling up your pants. That's all we want," Caraway says. "We don't want to throw folks in jail because they wear their pants low. So we're going to make it man's law and not city law."

And here is where fate stepped in to rescue the deputy mayor's crusade. In his barbershop in South Dallas, a rapper named Dewayne Brown saw Caraway on TV. Brown is called Dooney, and Dooney was suddenly very excited because he had been thinking about writing a new song. He already had a title: "Pull Your Pants Up."

After the 10 o'clock news was over, Dooney ran to his recording studio in the back of his barbershop and by 3 a.m., he had written an anthem — a hip-hop plea to America's youth.

Dooney says that most of the boys and young men who are saggin' don't know where it really comes from. But another word for saggin' is jailin'.

"They don't know why their pants are low ... They think it's a fad, or it's something to do or it's cool. And I say, 'Well, No ... it come from behind the bars.'"

Clear Channel has agreed to donate billboard space around town and Dooney designed a billboard showing him with his arms crossed, standing in front of downtown Dallas.

Dallas is not the first city to confront saggin'. Shreveport, La., Atlanta and Stratford, Conn., have discussed passing laws. But Dallas is taking a different approach, trying for the hearts and minds of its young people.

Song Links Saggy Pants to Being Gay

The Bryant Park Project, October 26, 2007 · A new campaign by the city of Dallas targets the hip-hop style of wearing your pants low enough that your boxers are showin — and part of your posterior, too.

The campaign has a signature song, "Pull Your Pants Up," by Dooney Da' Priest, that links so-called saggin' with being gay. After the BPP blogged NPR's original report on the public service announcement, listeners objected to lyrics they consider homophobic.

Andrew Jones commented on a line about living "on the down low" — common slang for a man who has secret sexual encounters with other men.''It's cute when homophobia is part of a citywide campaign," Jones wrote. "Shaming the youth by calling them gay, love that from the government."

An accompanying billboard says it's rude to be "walking around showin' your behind to other dudes." The song's refrain is "Be a real man — pull your pants up."

In an interview with a local television station, Dooney explained that saggin' comes from jail, where he argued that showing your boxers has a very particular meaning. "You're letting another man know that you're available," Dooney said.

Mark Anthony Neal, professor of black popular culture in the Department of African American Studies at Duke University, parses the lyrics and explains why they'll hit some young men hard.

Throw your two cents in on our blog. See the open thread, "Dallas Saggy Pants Song: Homophobic?"

Saggy Pants Songwriter Sort of Says He's Sorry

The Bryant Park Project, October 30, 2007 · Dooney Da' Priest's rap song "Pull Your Pants Up" is meant to shame young men in Dallas from wearing saggy britches. It's the signature tune of a Dallas city campaign against so-called saggin'.

After listeners pointed out the homophobia inherent in taunting men for looking like they live "on the down low," Da' Priest says he apologized to the gay community on his MySpace page. Da' Priest says that the song isn't an attack on gay people, and that he was "dealing with the N-word, too."

"Whether their sexual preference is to be a homosexual or being gay, that's their problem," Da' Priest says. "I'm the street, I'm the street priest, and I have real good Christian values on what I believe in, and I am against homosexuality. But this is not the reason why I wrote the song."

On our blog, an open thread: So what if Dooney Da' Priest believes being gay is wrong?

Frost Illustrated in its 24 OCTOBER 2007 Edition also covered this issue:
Black leaders: Sagging low has got to go!

By Gordon Jackson
Special to the NNPA
from the Dallas Examiner

DALLAS (NNPA)-From a city councilman to a school board trustee and a college president, a decision made by black community leaders to dramatically uplift fashion and get rid of a controversial image in their community has brought them both high praise and strong criticism. Undaunted, they strive forward to regain control of their slice of urban America.

Dallas District 4 City Councilman Dwaine Caraway officially declared war on "sagging," the highly discussed fashion statement expressed mostly by young black males, where they wear their pants well below their waistline, exposing a portion of their underwear, or in some occasions, their buttocks.

"We are in discussion as to how and what it is we need to do," Caraway said at an Oct. 4 City Hall press conference. "It is something where we will have to collaborate with the different authorities in the city."

Caraway will meet with representatives of DISD and all the various law enforcement agencies in hopes of implementing a strong anti-sagging policy and resolution by the beginning of 2008.

DISD trustee Ron Price, who challenged the City Council on the same issue last year, also says that sagging low has got to go. He is more so targeting young adults going into their early 30s that sag, who he said is setting a poor example for the younger generation.

"That's the issue, it's not the kids. It's the adults who are bad role models for the children. It's not a race issue, it's a issue of decency and respect," said Price, who led the implementation of school uniforms in DISD. "It has nothing to do with race or gender, it has to do with our society as a whole and that we are demanding excellence out of all our citizens of the United States."

Price has proposed the saggers be fined $50 for a form of indecent exposure. Caraway fights away his critics, who say that every young generation finds different ways to outlandishly express their individuality and that possibly using a city ordinance against them is a violation of an individual's freedom of expression.

"There are organizations that want to protect the fact that they have the right to show their dirty underwear," Caraway said. "Well, who's protecting the eyesight of the three-year-old girl that left to go to the playground, protecting her right of seeing something she did not want to see? Or of the 89-year old grandmother getting her medicine at Wal-Mart?

Critics have also noted that the problem with young black males, believed by many to already be targets of profiling by law enforcers, would be further perpetuated when looking for saggers.

"Rest all thoughts about incarceration, about arresting them and tying up police time," Caraway said. "We don't want to go and attach a criminal history behind a person wearing sagging pants. At the same token, we want to be as tough, respectful and educational as we possibly can so that we can ensure that folks get our message."

Sagging has been going on since about the early 1990s and has been mixed in as one of the negatives elements of the hip-hop/gangsta culture, along with misogynous and profanity-laced rap music. The issue is also being aggressively addressed in other large urban cities like Baltimore, Trenton and Shreveport. In Atlanta, City Councilman C.T. Martin also is spearheading a campaign. He flew into Dallas on Caraway's invitation.

"We're not trying to attack young people. We're trying to create a connectivity to them to say 'let's talk about this,'" Martin said. "We have a right to teach and nurture our young individuals to as to what it takes to be successful in society. It's not about profiling."

It's about business, said Caraway.

"If a young gentleman, sagging, were to come in seeking a job, would he have an opportunity to get the job?" he inquired.

Martin said it's also about responsibility, especially among the older generation to guide the younger generation in the right direction.

"All we want is what our elders throughout the tradition of family, all the way back to Abraham wanted. We decided that when nobody else would speak up, we will come forward and tackle an issue," Martin said. "It's about the code of the streets and public policy."

It's also about education, said Paul Quinn College President Michael Sorrell.

"We are taking back our students, our streets, our kids. We're not going to advocate our responsibility," Sorrell said. "It doesn't have to be positive or neat and tidy, sometimes leadership is messy."

Sorrell is executing his own policy on the Paul Quinn campus. This semester, he instituted a business casual dress code during regular business hours Monday through Thursday. No jeans, t-shirts or sneakers while students are attending classes. Sorrell is focused on the school teaching his students both the job skills and life skills it takes to make inroads in the workforce.

"We are going to teach our students every minute we're on our campus," Sorrell said. "We're in the business of taking back our community, sometimes you have to teach people how to dream."

Paul Quinn's dress policy caught the attention of educators and other organization across the country, including C-SPAN, the political and public affairs cable television network that provides 24 hours-a-day coverage of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. Representatives of their C-SPAN Campaign 2008 Bus toured through Dallas and the Paul Quinn campus Tuesday to witness a debate on the dress code held by students.

"Our dress code has helped reduce discipline problems and develop responsibility," said senior and physical education major LaShonda Hunter, the lead debater. "When you walk into an interview, employers will be pleased with the professionalism of your appearance. It improves morals and values. It tells others that you are prepared to learn and work."

Kenneth Boston took helm on the opposing side.

"Just because I might have on jeans and a t-shirt, it doesn't take away from who I am intellectually," Boston said. "Some people work better relaxed and perform better when they're comfortable. If you have a student that doesn't necessarily agree with the dress code, that doesn't mean that they're going to leave just because of that.

"No matter how you dress, you can have high morals and values."

Brandon Clay, a freshman from Little Rock, also said he was influenced by friends.

"I had friends that did it and I did it because they did it," Clay said. "I always reserved the other side of dressing to make me feel better."

Both approve of Paul Quinn's dress policy.

"I think that in our community as blacks and individuals, we try to feel like a victim why we're in the position we're in and trying to make excuses," said Clay. "But one of the reasons why we're not moving forward is because of how you dress. I think they're making a great movement with this."

City Councilman Tennell Atkins remembered when his two now grown twin sons started sagging when they were teenagers.

"The first time I told them to pull their pants up," Atkins said. "The second time I pulled out my belt and I whipped [one's] butt. I did it because I love my kids."

Caraway gave an alarming vision of what could happen if the issue is not resolved now.

"Maybe the next generation may decide they want to wear no pants at all."

MY COMMENTS
When I get a copy of my editorial I will reprint it here but for now to give you the basic gist with a picture.

While I have no issue with a basic sag, as an issue of comfort and it can look down right sexy at times, which should not be restricted or legislated against. Because that is bad government and slaps in the realm of censorship and personal constitutional privacy privileges and rights. However when they sag below the buttocks, then it lends one to wonder "Why dont they just wear a kilt or a skirt to get the breeze that is so desired?", but alas it should still not be legislated or deemed something to be dealt with by community leaders. It needs to be dealt with by raising the self esteem and respect of the individual and group members by giving them a reason to present themselves in a more professional, less obtrusive manner, and that starts at home and in the workplace not in city hall or at the courthouse.

MRev. Kenneth White, Jnr.

Thanks to Michael Patterson
Publisher, Frost Illustrated
for sending me a copy of my editorial

Now this can get some light: Same-Sex Marriage in Prison

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has begun allowing conjugal visits for gay and lesbian inmates registered as domestic partners: "The change will allow gay and lesbian inmates the same rights as other inmates, who are eligible to spend up to three days with family members on prison grounds. Corrections officials say they are responding to legislation signed by former Gov. Gray Davis that awarded more rights to registered domestic partners and prohibited state agencies from discriminating against domestic partners...The changes were prompted by complaints from Vernon Foeller, 40, who was serving a 20-month sentence, convicted of attempted burglary, at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville. Foeller's request to have his domestic partner visit him last summer was denied, leading him to contact the ACLU."


And from Canada

(Montreal, Quebec) Two men in federal prison in Quebec will marry later this month in the first same-sex marriage at the Cowansville Penitentiary. David Bedard, 22, is serving a 10-year sentence for involuntary manslaughter. Sony Martin, 26, serving a life term for second-degree murder.

The two men met while behind bars. While Bedard will be eligible for parole in a couple of years, Martin, under the terms of his sentence is ineligible for parole before 2020. "Gay weddings have been legal since July 2005 and the first union between same-sex inmates occurred in November 2006, so it's not frequent," prison spokesperson Jean-Yves Roy told the Montreal Gazette.

The wedding is planned for October 29 the paper reported. It will be performed by a judge in the prison chapel and like other weddings behind bars will last about 10 minutes. But when it is over the couple won't be getting a honeymoon. They won't even be allowed to live together in the same cell. In fact, each man has been assigned to a different cell block, and there is nothing stopping Corrections Canada from moving either of the men to a different prison. They will not be allowed conjugal visits and will get to be together only when prisoners have common time - at the gym, outdoor activities, and meals.

Canada is one of five countries where gays can marry. The others are the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and South Africa. The only area in the United States where same-sex marriage is legal is the (*Commonwealth) of Massachusetts.

*original text: state, Massachusetts is a Commonwealth not a State, there is a difference.
1st article news source Difiens' Queer Focus
pic source StakeandCheese
2nd article news source 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff