Showing posts with label equality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equality. Show all posts

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Democratic Mayor Bill De Blasio Takes Office in New York City

 photo cbc23994-64e3-4dcf-bf2e-d5137ddc52a4.jpg

New York has an historic new mayor sworn in by President Bill Clinton.
















Thursday, August 29, 2013

Inspirational ~ The March on Washington 50 Years Ago and Today: Martin Luther King and Barack Obama

 photo march1963.gif

Pic via National Archives Tumblr



The Original Speech by Martin Luther King in Washington, August 28, 1963



Scenes from the Original March, via National Archives:



President Obama, August 28, 2013








Monday, August 26, 2013

Women's Equality Day 2013


 photo womens_equality_day_2009_logo.jpg

Each year the President of the United States proclaims Women's Equality Day on August 26th, the anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment which gave women equal rights to men, especially the right to vote. Now we just need to once and for all equalize pay for women and insure that our daughters continue to have the freedoms hard won since the 1970s women's rights movement.











Sunday, July 21, 2013

Marching for Trayvon Martin ~ Change the Stand Your Ground Laws

 photo b2656986-ba88-462d-8887-e22856dab529.jpg

source: @urbansoldier33 in Savannah, GA

This weekend, thousands of people in 100 cities are marching or rallying in memory of Trayvon Martin. And on Friday, President Obama made an impromptu, historic and heartfelt speech about race relations in America.












































And the Children Shall Lead Them

 photo 4671ed1c-c847-4e96-9eed-406489e62485.jpg

After the sad week we've had - with the unjust verdict of the Zimmerman Trial and grief for Trayvon Martin - this video of innocent kids without prejudice is a breath of fresh air. And it should give everyone hope for the future because the kids raised today understand the global community differently than any generation. And they are nearly colorblind and vastly more open-minded.

Forward.


Friday, January 25, 2013

Military Women in Combat

Photobucket
source: militarywomen.org


The United States Military has lifted restrictions for women in combat positions:

USA Today
The new order, signed Thursday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, will open as many as 237,000 new jobs to women. Women comprise about 14% of the 1.4 million active military personnel.

Military officials who briefed reporters on background said occupations such as infantry and artillery have exacting physical requirements and appropriate standards will be maintained. The officials declined to be named because they are not authorized to speak publicly.

The military has different physical standards based on age and sex for the Army and Marines. In either service, the standards for both sexes would be the same for those trying to get into the infantry and other combat arms specialties.

"The department's goal in rescinding the rule is to ensure that the mission is met with the best qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender," Panetta said.

I struggled with this title for this post because "Military Women Now Permitted in Combat" or "Military Women Finally Allowed in Combat" would mislead the reader into thinking that these women have led sheltered lives up till now. Women have always been in the thick of the battle as medics, pilots, technicians, military policewomen - you name it. And when battle lines change in distant lands, bombs and firefights are their reality, as well as their male counterparts. So it's not accurate to say "Now, Suddenly, Women are in Combat" as if something is new and unusual.

The only "new" feature is that women will now receive combat pay equal to men, and they will be considered for promotions and honors based on their very real combat experience.

Goldie Taylor, MSNBC pundit who served in the military, explained it well on last night's Ed Show:
You know, women have been serving in our armed forces and in
military operations around the world for decades. The fact is we`re doing
the job. We`re helicopter pilots. We`re Marine Corps, you know, military
police officers. We`re military intelligence officers.

We just don`t get formally recognized for it. And we certainly don`t
get paid for it. There`s a differential pay for someone who is formally
recognized as being a part of infantry. That is a boost in pay and
benefits that women don`t have access to. Certainly, if you serve on the
front line, you have greater access to leadership positions. That
opportunity is cut off for women who, again, not formally recognized.

I don`t know how much recognition you need than to look at someone
like Tammy Duckworth who comes home missing her legs, or someone like a
Shoshana Johnson, who was a POW, or someone like a Jessica Lynch, who was shot in the heels of her feet. So I don`t know how much more formal
recognition you need that women are doing the job today.



Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

SCHULTZ: Women have to volunteer for combat duty and face the same
physical standards that men do. Is that an issue or not an issue at all?

TAYLOR: You know, I went through boot camp back in 1987. My former
husband attempted to go through boot camp that very same year. He did not
graduate from boot camp and was returned home not a Marine. I, on the
other hand, did complete boot camp and did rise to the challenge. I do
believe that the standards for infantry should be high. They should not be
relaxed.

But if a woman can meet the physical and mental challenges of serving
on the front line, then she darn well ought to be able to serve on the
front line, be recognized, be promoted, and be paid for it.

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Law Links: Supreme Court will Consider Gay Marriage Cases Next Year

Photobucket

The Supreme Court has announced that it will consider two cases involving Gay Marriage to be argued in March and decided in the summer of 2013.

CBS News:
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996, prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Both the First and Second Circuit Court of appeals have struck down a provision of the law denying federal benefits, like Social Security benefits or the ability to file joint tax returns, to same-sex couples legally married. Because of these lower court rulings, DOMA has been declared unconstitutional in some regions of the country but not others -- an issue the Supreme Court now has a chance to rectify by reviewing the Second Circuit decision.

The court will also consider California's Proposition 8, the ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage that voters passed in 2008. Prop. 8 passed after the California Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the right to marry, putting California voters in the unique position of taking away rights granted by the court. After Prop. 8 passed, a federal court followed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said Prop. 8 was unconstitutional.

The high court is expected to hear arguments in both cases in March and issue rulings over the summer.

From USA Today:
"It's been our belief all along that the ultimate fate of Proposition 8 will be in the hands of the Supreme Court," said Andrew Pugno, general counsel for the advocacy group ProtectMarriage, which sought the high court's intervention.

"I fully believe that this court's going to come down on the side of freedom and equality," said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, which fights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights.

. . . Even if the court sides with gays and lesbians, opponents of same-sex marriage say it won't end the debate.

"The majority of Americans who have voted to protect marriage as the unity of a man and a woman are never going to go away," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage, he said, "would launch a national culture war."

From Reuters
Meeting in private on Friday at their last weekly conference before the court's holiday recess, the justices considered requests to review seven cases dealing with same-sex relationships. Five of them were challenges to the federal marriage law, one to California's gay marriage ban and another to an Arizona law against domestic partner benefits.

The court had been widely expected to take up at least one of the challenges to the federal marriage law, given that two federal appeals courts had found the law unconstitutional. Less clear was what the court would do with the California gay marriage ban.

"Taking both a states' rights case like Prop 8, and a case involving Congress's authority in the DOMA ... suggests that the court is ready to take on the entire issue, not just piecemeal it," said Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the individuals defending California's gay marriage ban.

The Blog of Legal Times
"I had thought the Court would take it in stages instead of doing DOMA and Perry at the same time," said Paul Smith of Jenner & Block, who had assisted in another DOMA challenge pending before the justices. On the DOMA grant of review, he added, "The arguments are pretty much the same in all the cases. It makes sense in some ways to have a decision below from the court of appeal."

Professor Douglas NeJaime of Loyola Law School, Los Angeles called the combination of grants in Perry and Windsor "really interesting" and added, "It's really hard to know exactly what the justices are thinking. Windsor is the DOMA case that presents the heightened scrutiny question and it was raised in Perry but the Ninth Circuit didn’t go there. The justices could be interested in saying its time to say sexual orientation classifications merit heightened scrutiny."

On the other hand, NeJaime said, "They could be prepared to split the difference and say a federal law like DOMA that denies recognition to valid state law marriages is unconstitutional, but not be prepared to find that states can't prohibit marriage themselves."

A third possibility, according to NeJaime, is that the justices will find both Prop 8 and DOMA Section 3 unconstitutional under the Constitution's lowest scrutiny—rational basis review.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

DNC: Stunning Inspirational Speeches


Last night left no doubt that the Democrats have inspirational speakers who know how to touch the hearts of the base, or anyone else who might be watching. And it's not just Michelle Obama.

Stacy Lihn talking about her family's need for President Obama's healthcare plan.


Lilly Ledbetter and her struggle for equal pay.


Deval Patrick ~ the bullies win if we have no backbone.


Julian Castro and the immigrant experience.

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Rise in Minority Birth Rate Rattles Republicans

Photobucket

For the first time in U.S. history, the minority birth rate exceeds that of Caucasion Americans. As the LA Times reports:
The United States has reached a historic tipping point -- with Latino, Asian, mixed race and African American births constituting a majority of births for the first time, theU.S. Census Bureau reported Thursday.
...Latino’s were 16.7% of the U.S. population in 2011, up from 16.3% in 2010.
...African Americans were the second-largest minority group in the United States, at 43.9 million in 2011, up 1.6% from 2010.
...Asians, who numbered 18.2 million nationally in 2011, were the second fastest-growing minority group, up by 3% since 2010.

Of course, these statistics scare the majority base of the Republican Party, who are lily-white in the main and not "into" inclusion anymore. Not to mention that it's the trend right now during a mean election year to slam immigrants, even those here legally, as somehow "Un-American" as if the phrase "melting pot" only applies to those of Irish, German and Italian descent. But this way of thinking is a logical dead-end, and can only signal the further marginal status of the right-wing.

Think Progress: quotes Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum
It is not a good thing. The immigrants do not share American values, so it is a good bet that they will not be voting Republican when they start voting in large numbers.
[...]
Instead, the USA is being transformed by immigrants who do not share those values, and who have high rates of illiteracy, illegitimacy, and gang crime, and they will vote Democrat when the Democrats promise them more food stamps.

What Ms. Schlafly and her group forget is that these children are American citizens by birth, and therefore equal to everyone else. And she is confusing "minority" with the word "immigrant." Some and probably most of the minority children counted by the Census come from families whose ancestors have been in the country for well over 100 years.

Yes, they might grow up and vote Democratic someday, perhaps because the Democrats never questioned their legitimacy as citizens or their equal right to have a good life in the United States. Or they might grow up to vote Democratic because they remember which party helped their families to cope with the Great Recession when they needed help from the government. I'm sure their families will remember who did NOT want to help them, who wanted to cut off their health care and education, not to mention the food stamps - which are mostly given to WHITE needy families anyway. They will remember who didn't want them around, so just go ahead, Republicans - make yourselves obsolete by rejecting these innocent children who will grow up to be the MAJORITY. See how that works for you.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Shepard Smith: Republicans on the "Wrong Side of History" About Gay Marriage

Photobucket


This is fantastic - Shep Smith is the one smart guy on the Fox News payroll and he isn't afraid to speak the truth and say that President Obama is on the correct side of history in his stance on gay marriage, while the Republicans refuse to "evolve."



And a little truth goes a long way when there is so much nonsense spouted about LGTB issues on the Right among people who actually know better. Watch the clip below from Hardball and you'll see what I mean - a Republican Romney tool saying that if parents just did all the right things such as reading the Bible to their kids, then they would never have a homosexual child. Funny thing - I bet almost everyone in the U.S. has known a preacher or deacon or Sunday School teacher with a gay child. And where do all those gay priests come from if their families indoctrinate them in religion from an early age? Answer: *crickets chirping*. There is no answer because sexual orientation is involuntary, not a choice. Unbelievable.



Photobucket

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

President Obama Endorses Same-Sex Marriage

Photobucket


Today in a major interview on ABC News, President Obama said he is in favor of gay marriage. This comes a day after North Carolina voted to add an amendment to their state constitution defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, effectively banning gay marriage in that state. The pronouncement also came a few days after Vice President Joe Biden said he was "absolutely comfortable with gay marriage" on MSNBC's Meet the Press.

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," he said.