New York passes marriage equality

Two great pieces of news in one day! First a federal judge granted Planned Parenthood of Indiana an injunction restoring Medicaid funding, and then New York state approved same-sex marriage. After several days in which is was unclear whether the issue would be voted on or whether there was enough support for the measure, Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the bill late Friday. It makes New York the largest state where same-sex couples can now legally marry.

One of the sticking points in the debate was exemptions for religious institutions. I have never had a problem with churches, synagogues or mosques not performing same-sex weddings. I don’t agree with it but that’s totally their choice. And what gay couple would want to get married in an establishment that regards them as subhuman, anyway? However, if a state government legally recognizes same-sex couples, those people should not be discriminated against in, say, a religiously affiliated hospital. I also don’t think those couples should be prevented from adopting children from religious adoption agencies. Your religious beliefs should end where someone else’s civil rights begin.

One interesting tidbit is that this law passed a Republican Senate when two years ago it failed in a Democratic Senate. I have to praise the Republicans who went against their party and voted in favor of love:

With his position still undeclared, Senator Mark J. Grisanti, a Republican from Buffalo who had sought office promising to oppose same-sex marriage, told his colleagues he had agonized for months before concluding he had been wrong.

“I apologize for those who feel offended,” Mr. Grisanti said, adding, “I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.”

It’s statements like his that give me hope that although marriage equality exists in just five states right now (with New York to be the sixth), in the not-too-distant future it will be reality in all 50.

Read Full Post »

‘Bones’ puts a price on love

I wrote a few months ago about some billboards for diamonds that were incredibly sexist, and I’ve been heartened by all of the comments I’ve gotten from people who feel the same way.

I was reminded of that post recently while watching an episode of “Bones.” Two characters are shopping for engagement rings, and when FBI agent Seeley Booth picks up an extravagant one, the saleswoman comments, “That’s an excellent choice. You must be very much in love.”

When the second character, Dr. Lance Sweets, points to a less flashy but still very nice ring, the woman says, “Really? Is she pregnant? Do you have to get married?” Sweets says no. The woman continues, “Then I wouldn’t bother proposing. Not with a ring like that.” Booth says, “Don’t listen to her, Sweets. You get whatever ring you want.” But Sweets, who is a gifted psychologist and should know better, says, “No, she’s right … If I’m thinking about the money, then I can’t ask her to marry me.” Later Booth decides on a bigger ring than the first one he picked out, and the saleswoman is giddy: “You’re a wonderful man. A wonderful, wonderful man.”

The whole scene really bothered me, and not because I believe it’s an accurate depiction of jewelry stores. First of all, why would a saleswoman be so critical of her own merchandise? A commission is a commission, no matter how small, and she managed to talk Sweets out of buying anything. But more importantly, the idea of a ring representing how much a man loves a woman is problematic, to say the least. Some married couples don’t wear rings at all. Does that mean they don’t love each other? Does a woman love a man less than he loves her because the ring she gives him typically doesn’t include a diamond? Of course not.

It’s also troublesome that men are expected to go broke paying for engagement rings. Sweets decided against proposing because he thought he should be willing to pay any amount of money for a ring. His fiancee is a very practical woman, and she likely wouldn’t care what kind of ring she got. Frankly, I’d rather get a Cracker Jack secret decoder ring than have someone go bankrupt paying for a little circle of metal. One of my guilty pleasures is reading advice columns, and this question has been posed before: Should I wait to propose until I can afford a ring? And the response has always been no.

Because really, how can you put a price on love?

Read Full Post »

We are all being framed!

Since the 1980s, wealthy conservative funding sources have plowed huge sums of money into creating think tanks to promote the radical right political agenda. The result of this seed money has been a seismic shift in how news and information is disseminated in the United States. It ain’t no liberal media anymore, folks.

By framing the debate with conservative catch-phrases, progressives, moderates, and liberals have been put on the defensive. In addition, by using or repeating conservative catch-phrases, the media, progressives, moderates, and liberals are actually doing the conservatives’ bidding for them. Through conservative tools like Fox New Channel and talking head pundits everywhere on talk-radio and television, these catch-phrases are repeated over and over again until they are part of the national lexicon. Here are a few examples of their recent catch phrases and why they are deceptive:

War on terror – by defining those despicable acts that took place on 9/11 as acts of war instead of heinous crimes, conservatives took advantage of the nation’s collective grief, shock, and outrage to pursue an authoritarian agenda. It also made it easier for them to push the more onerous and covert portions of the Patriot Act through Congress. Retired General and Secretary of State Colin Powell had argued at the time for the tragedy to be classified as a crime, but he was overruled by neocons in the Bush administration.

Defense of marriage – if there ever was a quick way to stir up religious conservatives, regardless of party affiliation, this catch-phrase would be it. For some reason radical conservatives think love and commitment can only be found between a man and a woman. Sounds awfully closed-minded, but consider the source.

Obamacare – by referring to health care reform as “Obamacare,” the conservatives are framing the debate based on the President’s image and popularity instead of the positive goals of reform itself. Not only does this alter the talking points, but it is sickly and subtly racist.

Partial-birth abortion – got to admit that this term does sound nasty, but that is because radical conservatives made this catch-phrase up to frame the debate in their favor. Technically, the proper term is “late-term abortion;” a rare, but necessary medical procedure, especially in those instances where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Funny how those opposed to abortion in any manner claim to be on the side of life, except if you are the mother. No one is claiming these decisions are easy, but if you support life, then it should be at all stages.

Pro-life – how can you be pro-life, but then support capital punishment or sending our nation’s sons and daughters off to far-flung and continuous wars? That’s the great inconsistency. Secondly, why is the infant’s life more important than the mother’s life? Isn’t everyone’s life supposed to hold the same value? The proper term should be “anti-abortion.”

Death panels – to this author, no catch-phrase is more deceptive or inaccurate than this one. It relies on fear, especially senior citizen fear, to frame the debate. Never mind the positive attributes of health care reform or that private insurance companies have been making life and death funding decisions for decades, conservatives are framing health care reform as an economic development tool for the grim reaper.

Tax relief – considering the average tax bite in 2009 was the lowest it has been in almost 60 years, what is it exactly we need relief from? Personally, I would prefer relief from radical conservative lies and misstatements.

Needless to say, opponents to the radical conservative agenda had better get on the ball and pronto. At the very least, they need to take pages out of the conservative playbook and learn how to frame and/or re-frame the debate. More specific guidance on debate framing is also available in two fascinating publications written by University of California (Berkeley) Cognitive Science Professor George Lakoff. They are entitled The Political Mind and Don’t Think of an Elephant. To ignore this issue and allow radical conservatives to continue control of the framing will put many of the freedoms we know and love in deep peril.

Read Full Post »