2010 or 2012?

There’s a saying by William Gladstone that goes “justice delayed is justice denied.” While in most civil rights cases, this holds true - the faster we are to act, the faster we will have results we desire - for homosexual marriage, the reverse may be the best course of action – “justice delayed is justice granted.”

If we look at the news today, a very interesting thing is happening. Gay rights activists groups are actually in disagreement about gay rights. Many groups, led by Yes on Equality!, are eager to overturn Prop 8 in the November 2010 election. Yes on Equality is fighting to repeal Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution, the “California Marriage Equality Act.” As of now, the article reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Yes Equality’s proposed California ballot initiate would have this section removed. 

However, other groups, led by Equality California, don’t believe California is ready yet to repeal Prop 8. While I am a strong advocate for gay rights and legalizing same-sex marriage and admire the enthusiasm of Yes on Equality! I agree with the activist group Equality-LA in waiting until the 2012 election to overturn Prop 8. It is just too risky and costly to rush such a crucial moment in California’s history.

In the 2008 election, both sides spent a total of $81 million dollars campaigning for Prop 8. In the end, 52% voted Yes on Prop 8 and 48% voted No on Prop 8. There are many reasons why waiting until 2012 is the best course of action to win the battle over same-sex marriage.

There are three major reasons that California should repeal Prop 8 in 2012 as opposed to 2010. First, we must wait for financial reasons. Due to the economic recession, all social and political groups are feeling the effects of less money in their pockets. As a result, less people are able to donate money to organizations that fight for LGBT rights. Thus, it is logical to wait two more years to raise enough funds.

Secondly, before we can convince others to vote for same-sex marriage, we need to focus on internal organization. Not only do we need full support from the entire LGBT community, but include our allies and make them pledge their support, financially and volunteering.  

Once we have financial support and a strong coalition of allies, we can finally turn to the gathering the support of others who voted Yes on Prop 8 in 2008. It is crucial in this aspect to win over the support of religious groups, conservative groups and communities of color, who statistically tended to vote Yes on Prop 8. However, it is not so easy to convince these groups to repeal Prop 8 if they voted for yet just a year ago. Thus, waiting until 2010 will give us the extra time needed to win over more supporters.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Perhaps, not even more...

What is the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy? In the simplest sense it is the federal policy regarding homosexuals serving in the U.S Military. The “don’t tell” part of the policy states that anyone who demonstrates the will to engage in homosexual acts is not allowed to serve in the armed forces; this includes disclosing his or her sexual orientation openly. The “don’t ask” part of the policy states that superiors in the military should refrain from questioning or investigating a service member’s orientation if they are behaving correctly. This policy was first introduced in 1993 and approved by Bill Clinton as a compromise since he believed all citizens regardless of sexual orientation should be able to serve in the military. Before this, only heterosexuals could participate in the armed forces. In the New York Times, then president Clinton stated in defense of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:”

Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender.

Recently in the news, President Obama was a speaker at a gala dinner hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group for gays, bisexuals and transsexuals. In his speech, he pledged to end the current military policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He even went as far as to say he would do his best to undo the law that prevents federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. While his speech seemed promising to many, people were still skeptical of President Obama’s promises since he did not provide a timetable or in the past year has been more talk, and less action. However, some of Obama’s recent actions show some promise. He has appointed some gays and lesbians to his administration team and promised to sign into law a bill, named after Matthew Shepard, that would expand the federal hate-crime law to cover violence against gays. So hopefully, President Obama will hold true to his promises and be a strong advocate for equality for all.

Fundmentalism and Progress?

There are many reasons why Prop 8 passed and there are just as many reasons why stem research doesn’t have the full support it needs. However, perhaps the biggest culprit in both cases has been religion. To be clear, I don’t mean all religions or all degrees of religion are at fault, but I am focusing more specifically fundamentalist religions. Regardless if it is Christian fundamentalism or Islam fundamentalism, there is something about fundamentalism in general, a common thread between all fundamentalist religions that prevents progress in many aspects of society. In terms of gay marriage, I define progress as voting for marriage equality for all and for stem cell research I define progress as the government providing the necessary financial support for research. Fundamentalism is most often characterized by its strict accordance to religious principles and scripture. For fundamentalist religions, its text or scripture, may it be the Bible, Torah or Koran, is considered to them as the word of God, thus must be followed, obeyed and not altered. While ancient text may have been more applicable hundreds or thousands of years ago, today there are a lot of conflicts and contradictions modern life presents in comparison with ancient text. However despite these discrepancies, most often fundamentalists don’t change their views to adapt to modern life, which in the end proves to be detrimental to society because it prohibits change for the better.

Birth Control...God's Greatest Gift for Women?

Ask any woman on birth control and I’m sure she would agree that birth control is one of the best inventions out there for us.

Yes there is the obvious reason why. But people who are not even sexually active love birth control just as much for its health benefits (studies show that it can reduce risks of cancer, ease cramps, clear one’s skin) and the magic ability to control your period.

Birth control was first introduced in 1960 and since then has “revolutionized contraception.” While there are so many options out there now for women for birth control from the pill to the patch to the ring to the shot, “almost half of all pregnancies are unintended” in the United States, according to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention.

What is the reason for this discrepancy?

One reason is insurance. According to an article in the New York Times, “nearly a third of women who start a new type of birth control stop within a year” because of changes in one’s insurance. Birth control isn’t cheap. It can range from $10 to $30 for a month’s supply, multiplying that by 12 months, comes out to be between $120 to $360 a month. While I can afford that, a lot of people can’t. Also, these prices can vary depending on one’s health insurance coverage or lack of coverage.

A second reason is religion. According to the journal Reproductive Health, researchers have proven a strong correlation between the teenage birth rate of a state to its level of religiosity. Their results show that “The more religious the state, the higher the rates of teen pregnancy.” One of their explanations for this finding is the lack of sex education, or sex-abstinence education. Regardless of how successful religious communities are in discouraging sexual intercourse, the problem is they are not educating teenagers about using contraception, and if anything discourage the use of contraception. According to the study: 
        “We conjecture that conservative religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in   
        discouraging use of contraception among their teen community members than in discouraging 
        sexual intercourse itself.”




Moral of the story: Birth control and other methods of contraception not only provide many health benefits but can help decrease the number of teenager pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies in general. However, to do so, the use of contraception needs to be supported from all communities, regardless of one’s religiosity, and taught in the classroom. And I think another thing we have to realize, is that it is never too early to start educating children on contraception. Below is an excerpt from a parenting blog on the New York Times:

A while ago I ordered some birth control for myself and my husband. When the box arrived, it included a freebie: a pack of 50 candy-colored condoms. I was about to throw them away, but after an internal debate that seemed at once to encompass every attitude, preconception, goal and belief I have about parenting, I took the bag and put it on the very top shelf of the cupboard in the kids’ bathroom.

A few months later, I heard a shriek of horror. I ran in to find my kids staring aghast at the bag of condoms.

I smiled shakily, “At some point in the very distant future, you’ll be having sex. And you’ll need protection.”

“God, Mom,” my daughter said, turning her back and stalking out of the room …. “That is so gross.”