Merit-bound Alley

Two cases where the British government is set to deport Iranian gay and lesbian asylum-seekers have made international news recently.

First is Mehdi Kazemi, a 19-year-old gay Iranian man who came to the UK to learn English in 2004. While he was in London, he learned that his boyfriend, still in Iran, had been charged with sodomy and executed. In a conversation with his father, Mr. Kazemi learned that his boyfriend was interrogated before he was executed and had named Mehdi as someone whom he had sexual relations with. It was then that Mr. Kazemi applied for asylum in the UK and was rejected. Terrified, he fled to the Netherlands where he now awaits a verdict of whether or not he will be sent back to Britain for deportation.

Pegah Emambakhsh, 40, is a lesbian Iranian who fled to the UK in 2005 after her girlfriend was arrested in Tehran. Her partner was convicted and and awaits execution by stoning. Ms. Emambakhsh is also fighting for asylum in Britain. She also narrowly avoided deportation while her case was waiting to be heard:

… but only after her local MP, Richard Caborn, and other parliamentarians persuaded the Government to allow her to stay while further legal avenues of appeal were explored. She says she was already on the way to Heathrow when she learnt of her last-minute reprieve. But last month the Court of Appeal turned down her application for permission for a full hearing.

I know I have voiced my disgust of these medieval Islamic regimes before in light of their gross violations of human rights, so I won’t go into yet another long diatribe against these worthless, dogmatic, monstrous pieces of shit. However, when a supposedly enlightened western government can even for a moment consider sending these poor people to their almost certain doom, it calls into question how far they really have come since the dark ages. Yes, they still have a royal family for some reason, but I thought that was pretty much their only tie to the ignorant past. As a western government, hell as humans they have the responsibility to help people in this situation.

However, instead they are treating the problem with predictable politician’s density:

In turning down Ms Emambakhsh and Mr Kazemi’s asylum applications, the Home Office has said that, provided Iranians are discreet about their homosexuality, they will not be persecuted.

So when, a few months after they’ve been deported and they are facing their executioners, Mr. Kazemi and Ms. Emambakhsh can take comfort in the fact that the British government did their job, and they’d be fine but for their lack of discretion.

Anyone who can turn their backs on people so critically needy of help should imagine what it would be like to live their victim’s lives. Do not doubt that, should these people be deported to Iran and executed, their blood is on Britain’s hands. I doubt that these British thugs would be so callous if it was their neck in a noose, or their bodies pelted by stones until they were bludgeoned to death.

In a huge win for equal rights protection in the state of Delaware, SB 141 was voted to stay in committee on Wednesday, 6/20. I would like to give out special thanks to the following people:

Thurman Adams for having the strong moral fortitude for bravely assigning this bill to a committee that, not only had nothing to do with employment legislation, but also had enough opposition to the bill to ensure it never reached the floor. Good job, you disgusting bureaucrat!

John Still for his faith in the political process. “”This bill has now shown up in three different committees, some of which I haven’t served on, and it’s never gotten out. I’d say that shows the pro tem knows how to pick committees.” Let it be heard throughout the world that the skills of protecting a bill from the process of a democratic vote on the Senate floor is far more important to Mr. Still than equal rights in the workplace. This is a man of distinct and well-considered priorities.

Nancy Cook for keeping in touch with her constituents. “‘I am here to represent my constituents,’ Cook said. ‘I believe the majority of my constituents are opposed to the bill.’” It’s so heartening to hear that we have at least one Senator that believes she is in touch. A real woman of the people.

All of you, thanks so much for giving this piece of worthy legislation the hiding it deserves. All of you made yourselves part of what it means to be an American: making second-class citizens out of gays and lesbians. A worthier cause could not be imagined.

Oh and a special note of appreciation goes to Greenwood resident and former Delaware blogger Jordan Warfel.

“Gays are not made to sit at the back of the bus,” Greenwood resident Jordan Warfel said, calling the bill “socialism.”

Yes, gays and lesbians should not be unhappy about being refused the same workplace protections as other minorities, in fact, they should be thankful that we don’t treat them worse. Thanks, Jordan, for keeping your archaic and ignorant opinion out there!

I’ve had a very stimulating discussion with Dave Burris over at DelawareLiberal on the necessity of this bill. I want to take a moment that I enjoy discussing our different viewpoints with Dave. He always seems to have good points in favor of his views, which helps me think more deeply about the issue and we rarely resort to childish namecalling unless it’s really  funny.

At any rate, it seems that this bill, which adds sexual orientation to the current protections against discrimination in the workplace,  may finally see floor time. This is an interesting story. It seems in order to make sure this bill never saw the light of day, out favorite enemy of democracy Thurman Adams assigned this bill to the Senate Insurance and Elections Committee.

I’m sorry, where? Holy shit, we know this man resorts to slimy tactics to make sure any worthy legislation dies with hardly a whimper, but couldn’t he at least do us the courtesy of trying to hide it? Can the Delaware public really be expected to look the other way while Adams thumbs his cauliflower nose at us? Well, yes, that’s been proven time and again…. where was I?

Ah, equal workplace protection. You can read many of my quite brilliant points over at DL, but the conversation was ended abruptly by the juicier Oberle almost-scandal (which I would have linked if it hadn’t disappeared from the NJ… interesting). The main point, I feel is that if there is a workplace protection bill, it needs to cover all minorities. Everyone in the country deserves equal protection in the eyes of the law. It’s one of the strongest ideals upon which this country was founded.

Dave may not see the necessity of that, but I do. And it looks like a lot of legislators do as well.

Liberalgeek caught it first, but what an awesome win!

The Massachusetts legislature has defeated a bill to make same-sex marriage unconstitutional by a vote of 151 to 45!

Folks, when a governmental body makes such a stand for the rights of a minority group, this is nothing short of an opportunity to rejoice, sing, and dance!

Mass. Legislature, you are nothing short of heroes! Thank you for taking a stand for a community that want nothing more than to be seen as equal in the eyes of the law!

Folks, it’s nothing short of miraculous that there is something that the government does that is so good, so fair, for its people that is deserves celebration. Take a moment tonight to reflect on the pure justness, the equality that the Massachusetts Legislature has stood up for and soak it in, and feel the satisfaction of one government body out there that is doing its work for all of its people!

PS: I want to hear if you’re as jazzed about this as I am. Post, fuckers!

Queen Elizabeth II visited the White House on July 7th, 1976. In an address, she made reference to the United State’s first Ambassador to Britain, John Adams: “John Adams, America’s first Ambassador, said to my ancestor, King George III, that it was his desire to help with the restoration of ‘the old good nature and the old good humor between our peoples.’ That restoration has long been made, and the links of language, tradition, and personal contact have maintained it.”

Her Majesty’s statement shows a keen insight into diplomacy, especially coming out of a withered throwback from the Middle Ages. She’s telling us that the virtues of communication and understanding is what allowed two countries who briefly (in the grand scheme of things) were bitter enemies to commence and nurture diplomatic ties that continue to this day.

I think that understanding of a country is dependent on an understanding of it’s culture, it’s traditions, and it’s people and any interaction without that understanding is doomed to be fraught with problems. The continuing failure of the US’ diplomatic relations underscores what seems to be the core of this administrations diplomatic theory: say whatever you like, but we won’t listen unless you agree with us. The amazing hubris of our current diplomatic relations will have future students of diplomatic theory shaking their heads and chuckling in amazement.

It’s not just international relations that deserves scrutiny, either. Looks at the plight of the detainees in Gitmo who because of fairly devious planning are subject to being held with no rights for as long as this administration pleases.
Through it’s lack of understanding og the rights of these detainees, the administration can turn its back on them and in turn, turn their backs on the very spirit of our justice system: Innocent until proven guilty. Also, take a look at the constant struggle of the GLBT community to gain nothing more than equal rights in this country. The government and the religious right’s misunderstanding of their lives and their culture allows them to turn their backs on AMERICAN CITIZENS, people who are no different than anyone else.

Understanding your friends and your opponents only leads to wisdom and learned decisions. Ignorance is never bliss. Ignorance is a ridiculous mockery of everything the human race has struggled for, and only leads to confusion and inevitable destruction.

Where does that leave this administration and the vocal majority in the history books?

Thank god for slow work days. They give me the chance to read articles like this, entitled Two Mommies Is One Too Many by James C. Dobson, the founder and chair of Focus on the Family. FotF is a ministry that advocates biblical principles in all aspects of life.

Of course, this article is a reaction to the news that Mary Cheney and Heather Poe are expecting their second child. Now, I realize this is old news, but Mr. Dobson’s article inspires me to respond since I know he reads M-BA, as does former President Bill Clinton, His Holiness the Pope, and Bono*. In Two Mommies Is One Too Many, Mr. Dobson states a case against same-sex parenting based on a 7 year old book (Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child by Kyle Pruett), a 10 year old article in Psychology Today (unnamed and uncredited), and a nearly 2000 year old book (The Bible, written by lots of folks).

I mention the times that these references were published because it’s very telling that he uses works that were written before same-sex marriage has been successfully defended in courts, before companies started giving benefits to same-sex partners, and only shortly after scientific research started to show that homosexuality could be linked to genetics. Civil rights for homosexuals and societal understanding of homosexuality has come a long way since the authoring of the works that Mr. Dobson refers to. So much so, that the American Psychological Association in2004 released a policy statement which testifies that there is no calculable ill effect on the mental or social well-being of a child reared by same-sex parents.

It would seem that Mr. Dobson is aware that his references are debatable, if not outright questionable, because he then uses a favorite of people with strong feelings that need defending: the appeal to emotion (and outright speculation). Quoting Mr. Dobson:

But set aside the scientific findings for a minute. Isn’t there something in our hearts that tells us, intuitively, that children need a mother and a father? Admittedly, that ideal is not always possible. Divorce, death, abandonment and unwed pregnancy have resulted in an ever growing number of single-parent families in this culture. We admire the millions of men and women who have risen to the challenge of parenting alone and are meeting their difficult responsibilities with courage and determination. Still, most of them, if asked, would say that raising children is a two-person job best accomplished by a mother and father.

Mr. Dobson goes on to, without any references, compare the allowance of same-sex parenting to the apparent travesty that is no-fault divorce, which has ” reflected our selfish determination to do what was convenient for adults, and it has been, on balance, a disaster”. No quite so, according to Laurie D. Krauth, MA in an article published on website of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy:

While fault proponents argue that divorce causes psychological problems in children, there is evidence to the contrary. In a review of research on children and divorce, Paul Amato, PhD, of the University of Nebraska, found that children’s’ adjustment depended less on the divorce than on the parents’ conflict, the custodial parent’s childrearing skills, the involvement of the non-custodial parent, economic hardship and stressful life changes. Some studies suggest that children with parents in a high-conflict marriage do better if their parents divorce, while children with parents who are disaffected but not in major conflict do better if they stay together.

Ahrons notes that “research shows children have no long-term damage when they continue to have relationships post-divorce with two emotionally healthy parents and when the parents do not embroil the children in their conflicts.” Furthermore, she adds research shows that “much of the negative effects on children predate their parents’ separation.” (link)

Now, being a father and a child of a divorce, I have my own opinons on both of these subjects, both are backed up by experience. As a father, I am well aware that I do add some things to parenting that my wonderful wife does not, just as she adds some things that I, her amazingly attractive and charming** husband, do not. However, it is because we are two different people, with different opinions, priorities, talents, and interests; not because one of us has a penis, and the other a vagina. As for the negative effects of divorce on a child, our family was exponentially better off once my parents split. Sometimes, a marriage is something that can be worked on and saved, making things better for the family, children in particular. In our case, the marriage of my parents was making everyone miserable, and the only way out for the kids was the divorce of the parents. The parents were able to become better friends than they ever were while married, and the stress relieved from the family made it possible for us kids to move on with a happier and more normal life.

With all due respect, Mr. Dobson, your arguments have no value in my mind.

___________________________________________________________________________

*I am lying. Sorry.

** and modest

Governor of Massachussetts Mitt Romney is attempting to revoke the rights of gays to marry in his state, cravenly masking it as a gambit by the Massachussetts General Assembly to block the people from putting it up to a vote. According to this slimy bastard:

“The issue before us is not whether same-sex couples should marry. The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the constitution,” declared Romney, promising to send the 109 lawmakers a copy of the constitution and their oath of office to underscore his frustration. “Let us not see the state, which first established constitutional democracy, become the first to abandon it.”

Yes, let’s please forget the fact that he’s initiating this in order to take away the rights that had been granted by the state in 2004 for gays to marry. Let’s also forget that the Assembly is trying to keep the majority from voting on the rights of the minority. Mitt Romney is apparently the vaunted protector of the MA Constitution, not a hatemonger in power! What a, dare I say, Culture Warrior!

I don’t envy the position of the MA legislature. This smarmy piece of shit is making them choose between the Constitution of their state, and the Bill of Rights. Whether or not they allow the people to vote to revoke the right of gays to marry, they will be unwillingly turning their back on a constitutional law. So far, their hesitiation to allow this shows a commendable loyalty to Civil Rights, but how long can they hold out against the teeming, frothing masses of neo-conservative bigotry?

God, how slick! The kind of devious genius that the Governor is using for no better reason than to steal the hard-won rights of a minority. Don’t forget, in his demented mind, he’s the good guy:

Yesterday, though, Romney said there is no question that the majority of state legislators on Nov. 9 decided to “usurp the Constitution, to abandon democracy, and substitute a form of what this nation’s founders called tyranny” for the will of the people. He said the constitution “plainly states” that legislators must vote directly on petitions from citizens.

Note the strong words: usurp, abandon democracy, tyrrany. Sounds great unless you have held in your mind that his version of democracy means taking the right to marry away from a minority group, and his tyrrany is the GA’s struggle to defend the civil rights of a minority group. But, you were supposed to forget about that, because he’s simply defending the state constitution and not initiating a draconian bid against the rights of a minority.

I’ll leave you, dear reader, with a thought: it was never a basis of our legal system that the majority could dictate the rights of the minority. The rights of every single American are unalienable, tempered by the Bill of Rights against miserable attempts, such as this, of a majority to mandate the rights of a minority. Every attack on civil rights, successful or unsuccessful or unavailing, blatant or hidden, is an attack on the spirit of what we struggle for: peace and happiness for all. There is no peace when there is inequality.

UPDATE: 

…a spokesman for House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi said, “The speaker is not going to respond every time the governor stages a cynical political ploy designed to impress right-wing Republican voters in primary states.” (link)

Now, that’s a quote!

In 15 minutes, Progressive Voices will be starting, with a program about GLBT rights. Please listen in and contribute, as this could be a very important show.

Update:

I feel I must say that I don’t think there is a more noble purpose than equal rights for everyone in this country. I also feel, that in consideration of the answer I got from Larry Peterson, that he and the Haven group seem to be dropping the ball.

I called in to tonights Progressive Voices show. My question for the guests was (paraphrased), “What are you doing to educate todays candidates about the topics that are so important to you?”

Unfortunately, I was not completely satisfied with the answer, which seemed to be that they have a democratic group that talks to democrats about equal rights for gays. The Delaware Stonewalls are a group that:

is committed to working within the Democratic Party to assure that the Party lives up to its Platform of being an inclusive Party.

In a state such as Delaware, where there is no support for GLBT rights outside of the Dems, it falls to Haven to pick up the slack. Especially in a time such as this, where the rule of the incumbents could not be in more jeopardy, the GLBT community has the unique opportunity to educate all of the candidates to the issues that they represent. To limit themselves to the Democrats seems to me to be a huge oversight, especially when they have the resource of a young and idealistic candidacy.

Believe me, it pains me to criticize a group that I so agree with, but Haven needs to do more than preach to the choir. They need to start educating those that may not already agree with their message. They may find that many of this years candidates may support their message.

Equal rights for all Americans is not a point to be taken lightly, and Haven has a message than can change civil rights in this country. I hope they realize the potential for empowerment before this years election is over.