28 August 2013

50 years later, MLK's dream lives on

50 years ago today, on August 28, 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. He was one of many speakers at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. And he is probably the one most remembered.

Last weekend, on Saturday, August 24, a 50th Anniversary March on Washington drew thousands of participants, including leading civil rights activists of today and icons like Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), the last living speaker from the 1963 rally.

Saturday's event was impressive. The speakers' words confirmed that we've come a long way in the past 50 years - and that we've still got a long way to go.

The first African-American President currently occupies the White House, and I wish Dr. King could have lived to see it. However, Obama's success has been met by a ridiculous amount of opposition from Tea Party racists and "birthers" and Congressional Republicans alike.

Fortunately, it seems as though our younger generations, for the most part, are much more color-blind that those of the past. And interracial marriages are much more commonly accepted these days in many, if not most, parts of the country.

Our non-white population is slowly but surely edging its way into a demographic majority. While this is surely a contributing factor to the white man's fear, it represents to me a welcome kind of karmic justice.

It is a shame, however, if the war on racism can be won only by outnumbering the racists. And so the dream lives on.

>> Read and hear the "I Have a Dream" speech.

27 August 2013

George Zimmerman wants Florida to pay for his defense costs

George Zimmerman now wants the Florida taxpayers to cover the defense costs he incurred during his trial for the murder of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin. Since he was acquitted, he believes he should be reimbursed.

Let's see...

Zimmerman disobeyed police orders to stop pursuing Trayvon Martin.

Instead of backing off as ordered, he shot Trayvon to death.

And now he wants the state to cover his legal expenses.

Clever.

Florida law does allow for that. But, in this case, it feels wrong. It feels ... dirty.

22 August 2013

Amnesty calls on Obama to commute Manning's sentence (and how you can help)

Amnesty International is calling on President Obama to grant Bradley/Chelsea Manning a commutation to time served.

"Instead of fighting tooth and nail to lock him up for decades, the U.S. government should turn its attention to investigating and delivering justice for the serious human rights abuses committed by its officials in the name of countering terror," said Widney Brown, Amnesty's Senior Director of International Law and Policy.

"Manning had already pleaded guilty to leaking information, so for the U.S. to have continued prosecuting him under the Espionage Act, even charging him with 'aiding the enemy,' can only be seen as a harsh warning to anyone else tempted to expose government wrongdoing," explained Brown. "More than anything else, the case shows the urgent need to reform the U.S.'s antiquated Espionage Act and strengthen protections for those who reveal information that the public has a need and a right to know."

If you agree, please sign Amnesty's petition here.

While the petition is unlikely to change any minds in the White House, it is important that we sign on in a display of solidarity against Manning's excessive sentence.

Sign on now.

21 August 2013

Rights group condemns Bradley Manning sentence

Today, war crimes whistleblower Bradley Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks which exposed U.S. war crimes and other government misconduct.

In response, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued this noteworthy statement condemning the sentence as well as the law it was based on:

"We are outraged that a whistleblower and a patriot has been sentenced on a conviction under the Espionage Act. The government has stretched this archaic and discredited law to send an unmistakable warning to potential whistleblowers and journalists willing to publish their information. We can only hope that Manning’s courage will continue to inspire others who witness state crimes to speak up.

"This show trial was a frontal assault on the First Amendment, from the way the prosecution twisted Manning’s actions to blur the distinction between whistleblowing and spying to the government’s tireless efforts to obstruct media coverage of the proceedings. It is a travesty of justice that Manning, who helped bring to light the criminality of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, is being punished while the alleged perpetrators of the crimes he exposed are not even investigated. Every aspect of this case sets a dangerous precedent for future prosecutions of whistleblowers – who play an essential role in democratic government by telling us the truth about government wrongdoing – and we fear for the future of our country in the wake of this case.

"We must channel our outrage and continue building political pressure for Manning's freedom. President Obama should pardon Bradley Manning, and if he refuses, a presidential pardon must be an election issue in 2016."

Indeed. But I shall not hold my breath.

20 August 2013

I'm not childless - I'm childfree!

I am not a mother. I never really wanted to be a mother. It never fit into my life's plans, nor those of my ex-husband.

I congratulate and applaud all the mothers who are raising children by choice or by circumstance. It's just not for me.

Some people seem surprised, as if all women are supposed to have a natural yearning for motherhood. They seem to think I'm in denial. Usually they feel sorry for me, which is a huge waste of energy.

But the worst of it is when they refer to me as "childless" - a word that suggests that something is missing from my life.

I don't think of myself as "childless". I prefer "childfree".

Take THAT, GOP misogynists!

14 August 2013

Defense Department announces same-sex spouse benefits

Good news: Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, today the U.S. Department of Defense announced plans to extend benefits to same-sex spouses of DoD personnel. This includes spouses of uniformed service members and civilian DoD employees.

Available benefits will include the DoD's health care coverage, housing benefits, and separation allowances, as applicable. The benefits will become available no later than September 3 of this year.

From the DoD's announcement:

"The Department of Defense remains committed to ensuring that all men and women who serve in the U.S. military, and their families, are treated fairly and equally as the law directs.

[...]

"We recognize that same-sex military couples who are not stationed in a jurisdiction that permits same-sex marriage would have to travel to another jurisdiction to marry. That is why the department will implement policies to allow military personnel in such a relationship non-chargeable leave for the purpose of travelling to a jurisdiction where such a marriage may occur. This will provide accelerated access to the full range of benefits offered to married military couples throughout the department, and help level the playing field between opposite-sex and same-sex couples seeking to be married.

"For civilian benefits administered government-wide to federal employees, the Department of Defense will follow the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Labor’s guidance to ensure that the same benefits currently available to heterosexual spouses are also available to legally married same-sex spouses."

Take THAT, John Boehner!

08 August 2013

Two sad atomic anniversaries this week

Tuesday, August 6, marked the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima by U.S. forces.

Friday, August 9, will mark the anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki.

According to the Hiroshima Day Committee, "About 140,000 +/- 10,000 (including 20,000 soldiers) were dead by the end of December 1945; 90% of these are thought to have been killed within 2 weeks after the bombing."

Of those who didn't die, many suffered serious long-term illness.

Most were innocent civilians - men, women, and children.

The Geneva Conventions were adopted in the wake of World War II, establishing humanitarian standards for war, including the protection of civilians.

Still, innocent civilians continue to suffer and die in our wars.

We never seem to learn. And we never seem to care.

03 August 2013

People power - in my dream and in real life

A little while ago, I awoke from a disturbing dream. In it, I was standing near my car at a gas station, and there was a benign-looking man standing next to his car nearby. It was nighttime. A third car drove up, and I had an uncomfortable feeling about it. Then a man got out of it and attacked the first guy. They fought violently, and I felt helpless. All I could do was call 911 and hope that the police got there quickly. Then I sought refuge in the gas station's convenience store, where other people were also concerned about the fight, and had also called the police. At last, I started to feel safe.

I'm thinking that the dream reflects my real-life feelings of helplessness sometimes when I see all the violence and human rights abuses in the world, and the frustration I feel about the fact that I cannot just snap my fingers or put on a red cape and stop it all by myself.

But, in my dream and in reality, feelings of helplessness dissipate when others join in and we work together to solve the world's problems. "People power" is very real, as I've seen in the many success stories shared by Amnesty International and other advocacy groups I've worked with.

Bottom line: Don't feel helpless - get organized!

31 July 2013

Rights groups react to Bradley Manning verdict

On July 30, in a military trial at Fort Mead, Maryland, war crimes whistleblower Bradley Manning was acquitted of aiding the enemy (the most serious charge against him) but was found guilty of 19 other charges. While serving as a Private First Class in the U.S. Army, Manning had released hundreds of thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks which exposed U.S. war crimes and other government misconduct. Doing so led to his court-martial.

In response to the verdict, Amnesty International suggested that the U.S. government needs to reassess its priorities: "The government's priorities are upside down. The U.S. government has refused to investigate credible allegations of torture and other crimes under international law despite overwhelming evidence," said Widney Brown, Amnesty's senior director of international law and policy. "Yet they decided to prosecute Manning who it seems was trying to do the right thing - reveal credible evidence of unlawful behavior by the government. You investigate and prosecute those who destroy the credibility of the government by engaging in acts such as torture which are prohibited under the U.S. Constitution and in international law... It's hard not to draw the conclusion that Manning's trial was about sending a message: the U.S. government will come after you, no holds barred, if you're thinking of revealing evidence of its unlawful behavior."

In other words, U.S. policy is to shoot the proverbial messenger.

The lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) agree. The CCR had filed a case challenging the lack of transparency around the Manning trial. Now, in the wake of the verdict, the CCR has released a statement condemning the charges against Manning related to the Espionage Act: "[T]he Espionage Act itself is a discredited relic of the WWI era, created as a tool to suppress political dissent and antiwar activism, and it is outrageous that the government chose to invoke it in the first place against Manning. Government employees who blow the whistle on war crimes, other abuses and government incompetence should be protected under the First Amendment."

The CCR statement goes on to question the future of journalism and the First Amendment itself: "We now live in a country where someone who exposes war crimes can be sentenced to life even if not found guilty of aiding the enemy, while those responsible for the war crimes remain free. If the government equates being a whistleblower with espionage or aiding the enemy, what is the future of journalism in this country? What is the future of the First Amendment?"

Indeed. And it's not just journalists and whistleblowers who should be worried.

30 July 2013

Will PA court cases overturn state DOMA?

Last week, D. Bruce Hanes, the register of wills for Montgomery County, PA, in the Philadelphia suburbs, started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couple in protest of a state law that mirrors the now-defunct federal Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

In defending his actions, Hanes said, "I decided to come down on the right side of history and the law."

While I believe that DOMA - whether at the federal level or at the state level - is inherently unfair, my first impression when I heard the news last week was that Hanes was breaking the law. So, as much as I admired his bold act of civil disobedience, I was uncomfortable about it.

Then today happened.

State officials are suing Hanes in hopes of getting a court order to stop him from issuing marriage licenses.

Meanwhile, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the state's marriage law.

Just as the federal lawsuits against DOMA resulted in that law being overturned, I am hoping that one or both of these state-level suits result in a similar ruling at the state level.

Much of our progress in America through the decades was the result of brave people boldly engaging in civil disobedience. With that in mind, I am no longer uncomfortable with Hanes's actions. Indeed, I applaud him for going there, and I hope to someday shake his hand.

26 July 2013

Portugal condemns Texas's 500th execution

On June 26, Texas executed its 500th death row prisoner since a 1976 Supreme Court ruling that reinstated the death penalty as an option in this country.

Texas is the execution capital of the U.S. And the U.S. is one of only two industrialized democracies (the other being Japan) which still have the death penalty. The rest of the world is becoming much more civilized.

Especially Portugal, where the last execution took place in 1846.

Last week, the Portuguese government stood up for human rights and issued the following statement on its website condemning Texas's 500th execution:

Portugal strongly regrets the execution of Kimberley McCarthy on 26th June in Texas, USA. This brings the number of persons executed in Texas to 500 since capital punishment was re-established in the State in 1982.

While recognizing the seriousness of the crimes perpetrated and extending our deepest sympathy to the families of the victim, Portugal opposes the capital punishment in all cases and without exception. Capital punishment represents an irreversible loss of human life and there are numerous studies that demonstrate that it has no deterrent effect.

Portugal calls on the State of Texas to reflect on the continued use of the capital punishment and to reconsider this policy in light of the worldwide trend towards abolition, as was the recent case of the State of Maryland which repealed capital punishment in March this year.

I applaud the Portuguese government for openly condemning this barbaric practice.

20 July 2013

Guns for George Zimmerman

A few days ago, there were reports that George Zimmerman would get his gun back - the one he used to kill Trayvon Martin - now that the trial is over and he's been acquitted.

However, in the meantime, the Justice Department stepped in and put all the trial evidence - including the gun - on hold pending its own investigation of the case.

I can imagine that Zimmerman might feel insecure without his gun. But he needn't worry for long. A Florida gun store has offered Zimmerman a free gun.

"We currently have the same model in stock, or he could (choose) another weapon suitable for concealed carry," said a letter from Pompano Pat's motorcycle and gun shop to Zimmerman's attorney.

The letter continues: "We have read numerous reports of death threats against your client and believe no good would come from harming him."

Pompano Pat's wants to ensure that Zimmerman can continue to stand his ground against scary, skittle-carrying teenagers.

Because they care.

</sarcasm>

19 July 2013

Texas executed two prisoners this week

Not something to be proud of:

On Tuesday, July 16, Texas executed John Quintanilla, Jr.

Then on Thursday, July 18, Vaughn Ross received a lethal injection in the same Texas death chamber.

That's two executions just two days apart.

The next one is scheduled for July 31.

They like to keep that grisly production line humming.

16 July 2013

Would Trayvon be alive if he lived in Pennsylvania?

My home state of Pennsylvania has a "Stand Your Ground" law that was modeled after the Florida law. "Stand Your Ground" laws allow a person to use deadly force in self-defense against someone whom you believe presents a serious threat to you. I opposed the law when it first came before the State Assembly, and I oppose it now. It makes it too easy to kill or seriously harm someone who might not actually pose a threat at all, just because you might be paranoid enough imagine that they look suspicious.

However, I just learned that the Pennsylvania law contains a caveat not present in the Florida law, which might have made all the difference if Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman had lived in Pennsylvania rather than in Florida.

According to Philadelphia's CBS affiliate, the Pennsylvania law "requires that outside the home, a person invoking 'Stand Your Ground' must see a deadly weapon, not merely feel threatened."

So, since Martin was carrying nothing more lethal than a pack of Skittles candy and a can of iced tea, Zimmerman might have chosen not to shoot. Or, if he did, he might have had a lot more explaining to do.

15 July 2013

Stop the threats to Zimmerman

I am as disappointed as anyone regarding George Zimmerman's acquittal over the weekend in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida. But, at the same time, I strongly condemn the actions of some other disappointed individuals who are going overboard and wishing harm on Zimmerman.

For example, some graffiti was discovered in the Philadelphia suburbs with the message "Kill Zimmerman". And this is just a drop in the bucket.

Incidents like this will only fuel the right-wing media's sensationalistic speculation about violent race wars in the wake of Saturday's verdict. And these incidents only make the perpetrators look no better than Zimmerman.

Violence and property damage will not change the verdict, nor will they bring Trayvon Martin back to life.

Those of us who feel that justice was not served will get our message across most clearly if we do so in a reasonable, peaceful, and dignified way. I think that's surely what Trayvon's parents - both of them the embodiment of grace and class - would want.

14 July 2013

Racial profiling in the post-Trayvon era

The jury in the Florida case of George Zimmerman has found him not guilty of murder or manslaughter in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. So now Zimmerman walks free, and will likely be rewarded with book deals and other lucrative offers. And people around the country - and the world - have been shown that you can shoot an unarmed black teenager and get away with it.

Zimmerman's acquittal appears to make a case for racial profiling. And that is very, very dangerous. Zimmerman pursued Martin because he thought the young black man seemed out of place in the neighborhood, and therefore threatening. I doubt he would have caught Zimmerman's eye if Trayvon were a white kid dressed in a preppie sweater.

Furthermore, Zimmerman's supporters have been all over social media in recent weeks defending the unfair profiling. For example:

beachcomber @anniebrown00
It is not racial profiling, it is situational profiling. So many blacks are criminals.

FreeDegree @LawatStPenn
@msnbc If NAACP want no profiling, change way young men act n their attire!

The above tweets (two drops in a very big bucket) propagate the myth that blacks are more prone to bad behavior, and that racial profiling is therefore justified. This mindset is not only inaccurate but downright dangerous.

Crime statistics are often misinterpreted and misunderstood, as African-American writer Chauncy DeVega explained in an essay last year:

The black people commit more crime canard is a fallacy of both process and outcomes. African Americans are subject to discrimination in the legal system at every level. As documented by The Sentencing Project, and detailed in such works as Race, Crime and the Law, and The New Jim Crow, African Americans are more likely to be stopped by police without cause, to be more aggressively questioned, receive longer and more severe charges for the same crimes as white defendants, and to have fewer resources to defend themselves in court.

As compared to white neighborhoods, black and brown communities are also subject to more severe surveillance and aggressive police tactics. Moreover, the disproportionate number of minorities in the criminal justice system can be largely explained by the War on Drugs. In total, if white communities were subject to the same type of aggressive police tactics as black and brown communities, the number of white people in prison would skyrocket.

The data is very telling here. While people of color are the prime targets of such policies as "stop and frisk" and racial profiling, it is in fact white people who are far more likely to be both drug users and to be in possession of narcotics at a given moment. This reality signals to a larger social phenomenon: black individuals who commit crimes are representative of their whole communities, crime is racialized, and there is no qualifier of individual intent. All black people are deemed suspicious and guilty because of the deeds of the very few.

In contrast, white people who commit crimes are unique individuals: the criminals who destroyed the global economy, a group of white men, were not taken as representative of the entire white community. There is a long list of crimes such as domestic terrorism, serial murder, child rape, sedition, treason, and financial fraud that are almost exclusively the province of white people. But again, whites as a group are excluded from suspicion or indictment as a "criminal class."

Racial profiling is a waste of time and can make us less safe. Multiple studies have shown that when police focus on factors such as race, they tend to pay less attention to actual criminal behavior. This is a dangerous trend that can inhibit effective law enforcement and ultimately endanger the lives of all persons who depend on law enforcement for protection.

Furthermore, a 2004 report by Amnesty International provides overwhelming evidence that racial profiling is not only ineffective and counterproductive in finding the real criminals, but that it also encourages hate and undermines national unity. The report was based on six public hearings nationwide and more than a year of intensive research. And, given the racial tension we see in the aftermath of Trayvon Martin's death, it is as timely now as ever.

We will be much better protected if law enforcement and security personnel (including neighborhood watch volunteers like Zimmerman) focus on what people are actually doing, and not on what they look like.

13 July 2013

Zimmerman was not standing his ground

The jury in the George Zimmerman case in Florida is now in its second day of deliberations.

Zimmerman pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder in the shooting death last year of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, on grounds that he was defending himself under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. The problem with that, as I see it, is that Zimmerman was not standing his ground. He was aggressively pursuing Martin.

Even after the 911 dispatcher instructed Zimmerman to stop following Martin, Zimmerman loaded his gun, exited his car, and went out actively looking for trouble.

Therefore, I cannot imagine how the jury could possibly settle for anything less than a manslaughter conviction.

If they do, I will certainly want to hear their reasons why.

11 July 2013

PA Attorney General will not defend state DOMA

Yesterday I wrote about a new lawsuit brought by the ACLU challenging a Pennsylvania state law that excludes same-sex couples from marriage.

And today there is already some good news regarding the case:

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane has announced that she will not defend the discriminatory law. (Not unlike how President Obama and AG Holder chose not to defend the federal DOMA.) Kudos to Kane for standing up for fairness and equality!

But the lawsuit doesn't end here. According to Philadelphia's NBC affiliate, "Pennsylvania law says it is the attorney general's duty to defend the constitutionality of state laws. But it also says the attorney general may allow lawyers for the governor's office or executive branch agencies to defend a lawsuit if it is more efficient or in the state's best interests."

Governor Tom Corbett is a conservative Republican, so I expect him to pick up the ball that Kane bravely dropped and run with it himself.

Stay tuned.

10 July 2013

ACLU sues for right to same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a key provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Now it's time to take on similar state-based laws that promote inequality.

To that end, on Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Pennsylvania state law that excludes same-sex couples from marriage.

Below is an excerpt from an ACLU press release about the Pennsylvania case:

The lawsuit alleges that Pennsylvania's Defense of Marriage Act and refusal to marry lesbian and gay couples or recognize their out-of-state marriages violates the fundamental right to marry as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This lawsuit comes in the wake of the ACLU's victory before the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Windsor, which requires federal recognition for lesbian and gay couples who are married in their home states. Plaintiffs argue that the court should closely scrutinize this discriminatory treatment because the state's Defense of Marriage Act burdens the fundamental right to marry and because it discriminates based on sex and sexual orientation.

"We only want what every married couple wants - to express our love and commitment in front of friends and family and the security and protections that only marriage provides," said plaintiff Deb Whitewood, who has been together with her spouse Susan Whitewood for 22 years. "Our life is built around our relationship and the family we have made."

The plaintiffs include 10 couples, two minor children of those couples, and one widow who recently lost her partner of 29 years.

>> Read the full press release.

And stay tuned for updates.

Meantime, I hope to see many similiar actions spring up around the country. Currently, 13 states and the District of Columbia legally recognize same-sex marriage. That leaves 37 states to go. That's way too many, so we must get busy!

03 July 2013

Amnesty International says U.S. must not persecute Snowden

On July 2, Amnesty International issued the following comments addressing the case of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden from a human rights perspective:
The US authorities' relentless campaign to hunt down and block whistleblower Edward Snowden's attempts to seek asylum is deplorable and amounts to a gross violation of his human rights Amnesty International said today.

"The US attempts to pressure governments to block Snowden's attempts to seek asylum are deplorable," said Michael Bochenek, Director of Law and Policy at Amnesty International. "It is his unassailable right, enshrined in international law, to claim asylum and this should not be impeded."

The organization also believes that the National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower could be at risk of ill-treatment if extradited to the USA.

"No country can return a person to another country where there is a serious risk of ill-treatment," said Bochenek.

"We know that others who have been prosecuted for similar acts have been held in conditions that not only Amnesty International but UN officials considered cruel inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of international law."

Senior US officials have already condemned Snowden without a trial, labelling him both guilty and a traitor, raising serious questions as to whether he'd receive a fair trial. Likewise the US authorities move to charge Snowden under the Espionage Act could leave him with no provision to launch a public interest whistle-blowing defence under US law.

"It appears he is being charged by the US government primarily for revealing its - and other governments' - unlawful actions that violate human rights," said Bochenek.

"No one should be charged under any law for disclosing information of human rights violations. Such disclosures are protected under the rights to information and freedom of expression."

Besides filing charges against Snowden, the US authorities have revoked his passport - which interferes with his rights to freedom of movement and to seek asylum elsewhere.

"Snowden is a whistleblower. He has disclosed issues of enormous public interest in the US and around the world. And yet instead of addressing or even owning up to these actions, the US government is more intent on going after Edward Snowden."

"Any forced transfer to the USA would put him at risk of human rights violations and must be challenged," said Michael Bochenek.

But, of course, it seems that the U.S. government pays attention to human rights groups like Amnesty only when it suits a predetermined agenda.

26 June 2013

Texas kills 500th prisoner - a woman

This evening, the state of Texas executed its 500th death row prisoner since a 1976 Supreme Court ruling that reinstated the death penalty as an option in this country. Kimberly McCarthy received her lethal injection just after 6:00 pm Texas time.

Governor Rick Perry, who likes to brag about his execution record, is probably celebrating. But this gruesome milestone is nothing to celebrate. The case appears to be riddled with racial bias and suggestions of inadequate defense counsel. That's not justice.

See my Tuesday article for details on the issues surrounding McCarthy's case and her death sentence.

And consider the words of Mohandas Gandhi, who said: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Shame on Texas - a very blind state.

At Supreme Court, a double victory for marriage equality

In an historic double victory, two decisions came out of the U.S. Supreme Court this morning that favor same-sex marriage.

In the case of United States v. Windsor, the Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional. DOMA had defined marriage for all federal purposes as a legal union between a man and a woman, thereby depriving same-sex couple of federal benefits.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy explained: "DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State."

Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, joined Kennedy.

Not surprisingly, conservative Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented.

Then, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court dismissed Proposition 8, the 2008 California ballot initiative which struck down same-sex marriage in that state.

Here, Justices Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, & Kagan formed a very interesting majority.

Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor (!) dissented.

Unlike the DOMA case, the Prop 8 case was decided on a technicality - specifically on the Court's belief that Prop 8 proponents did not have legal standing to pursue the case since the state had refused to do so. (In other words, no vigilate justice allowed!)

Nevertheless, today's decision killed Prop 8 and restored same-sex marriage in California.

While these two decisions do not affect any of the U.S. states that have not yet legalized same-sex marriage, they reinforce the notion that the tide is turning in favor of LGBT rights. That in itself is clearly worth celebrating.

Excellent statement by Secretary Hagel on DOMA ruling

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for all federal purposes as a legal union between a man and a woman. Under DOMA, same-sex spouses were denied federal benefits that were available to heterosexual spouses.

Upon today's news, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel issued the following excellent statement:

The Department of Defense welcomes the Supreme Court's decision today on the Defense of Marriage Act. The department will immediately begin the process of implementing the Supreme Court's decision in consultation with the Department of Justice and other executive branch agencies. The Department of Defense intends to make the same benefits available to all military spouses -- regardless of sexual orientation -- as soon as possible. That is now the law and it is the right thing to do.

Every person who serves our nation in uniform stepped forward with courage and commitment. All that matters is their patriotism, their willingness to serve their country, and their qualifications to do so. Today's ruling helps ensure that all men and women who serve this country can be treated fairly and equally, with the full dignity and respect they so richly deserve.

Bravo, Secretary Hagel!

And congratulations to all the same-sex military spouses who will now receive the benefits that, as Secretary Hagel said, they so richly deserve.

25 June 2013

Marriage and death on Wednesday's agenda

Wednesday, June 26, promises to be a big news day, for good or for bad.

First, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Proposition 8, both of which deal with same-sex marriage.

DOMA defines marriage for all federal purposes as a legal union between a man and a woman. The case, United States v. Windsor, was brought on behalf of Edith "Edie" Windsor, who in 2009 lost her spouse of 44 years, Thea Spyer. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Windsor and Spyer had gotten married in Canada in 2007, and "were considered married by their home state of New York." But, because of DOMA, explains the ACLU, "Windsor was not able to claim the estate tax marital deduction that is available when the surviving spouse is of the opposite sex. In her lawsuit, Windsor is seeking to have DOMA declared unconstitutional and to obtain a refund of the federal estate tax that she was forced to pay following Spyer's death."

Proposition 8 was a 2008 California ballot initiative which struck down same-sex marriage in that state. The case now before SCOTUS, Hollingsworth v. Perry, challenges the constitutionality of Prop 8. Two lower courts that heard the case have ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

After that will come a life-and-death decision from Texas, where Kimberly McCarthy is scheduled to be the 500th prisoner executed in that state since a 1976 Supreme Court ruling that reinstated the death penalty as an option in this country. If a stay is not granted, the lethal injection will begin to flow at 6:00 pm CT.

McCarthy's attorney has filed an appeal based on racial discrimination and quality of counsel. James Turnage, writing in The Guardian Express, summarizes:

[Maurie Levin, McCarthy’s legal counsel since January] claims that the jury in the 2002 trial was selected on a racial basis. McCarthy is an African-American woman, and the neighbor she killed, Dorothy Booth, was a 71-year-old white woman.

Her trial was held in Dallas County. The population is 69% white and 23% black. Only one [African American] was on the jury of 13.

Out of an initial pool of 64 prospective jurors, only four non-whites made it through to the final selection. Of those four, three were ejected from the actual jury through peremptory strikes by prosecution lawyers.

Texas has a history of excluding black men and women from their juries. In 1963, a Texas training manual instructed prosecutors not to "take Jews, negroes, dagos, Mexicans, or a member of any minority race on a jury, no matter how rich or how well educated". A similar manual published in 1986 carried the memorable advice that it was "not advisable to select potential jurors with multiple gold chains around their necks or those who appear to be 'free thinkers'."

In 2005, three years after McCarthy was placed on death row, [an] investigation revealed that prosecutors were continuing their efforts to exclude non-white jurors.

Levin has also asked two members of the appeals board to recuse themselves because they were assistant district attorneys in Dallas County at the time of Ms. McCarthy's unfair jury selection.

A second part of the appeal centers around a Supreme Court decision that says appeals after conviction must be heard. Levin says McCarthy was given inadequate council after she was placed on death row. Levin said that none of McCarthy's appointed [attorneys] challenged what was obviously a racially biased jury.

On Monday, however, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused to block the execution because, according to the Associated Press, "she should have raised her claims previously."

McCarthy has already seen two prior execution dates come and go. Her lawyer is now considering the remaining options.

My fingers are crossed in hopes that the Supreme Court will decide in favor of marriage equality in both cases, and that Texas will stop the execution (again). But I'm too old and jaded to be totally optimistic.

21 June 2013

The death penalty is not a deterrent

When I talk with proponents of the death penalty, they often argue that capital punishment is a good deterrent. They believe that a person would be less likely to commit murder if there were a chance that he might have to die for his crime.

The experts disagree. According to Amnesty International, "A 2009 survey of criminologists revealed that over 88% believed the death penalty was NOT a deterrent to murder."

And the statistics prove it. As Amnesty also notes, "The murder rate in non-Death Penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in States with the Death Penalty."

Whether you're for it or against it, when dealing with life-and-death issues like the death penalty, it is important to know the facts and face reality.

20 June 2013

Warlords, friends, and misunderstandings

Story of my life:

"It's not that complicated, I'm just misunderstood."
-- Pink

Other sensitive/compassionate/passionate types out there can probably also relate to those lyrics.

Where our loved ones are concerned, our bark can be bigger than our bite. And that can lead to misunderstandings and related tears. Because we care.

But hopefully the opposite is true when it comes to our confrontations with human rights abusers and other bad guys (warlords, dictators, Dick Cheney, etc.). I want them to be very, very afraid.

Sadly, however, often the reverse is true in both types of cases. Our loved ones misunderstand, dismiss, and sometimes ridicule our sensitivity and passion - while the powerful bad guys shoo us away and continue to make the world a more painful place.

And that is why I still have so much work left to do - on both a personal level and a universal one.

15 June 2013

William Fisher, RIP

I was saddened to learn today that my dear friend and colleague, William ("Bill") Fisher died on June 11 at the age of 84.

Bill started out as a newspaper reporter in the 1950s, and then was recruited by the John F. Kennedy administration to be a presidential speech writer and public affairs specialist. He later moved on to an illustrious career in international development in the Middle East, Latin America, and elsewhere.

I first met Bill about 10 years ago, when we were both becoming involved in intense left-leaning journalism and op-ed writing in the wake of 9/11 and the ensuing human rights issues related to the George W. Bush administration's "war on terror". Bill, who had long since retired from his day job, proudly told me that he chose to write so that he could donate his pay to his granddaughter's college fund. But his granddaughter isn't the only one who has benefited from his writing.

Bill approached each and every issue with fairness, thoroughness, and abundant research. His integrity was beyond dispute.

I still have every email that Bill and I have exchanged, and I don't think I'll ever delete them. He was, and will always be, an inspiration.

You can read his official obituary on his website here.

14 June 2013

6 months after Newtown shootings, the NRA still rules America

Today marks the 6-month anniversary of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. 20 first grade students and 6 school staff were murdered that day by a psycho with a semi-automatic rifle.

The tragedy sparked renewed calls for new gun control measures, particularly universal background checks. Still, all these months later, no progress has been made at the federal level.

The NRA again has won.

And that's because our elected members of Congress continue to let the NRA win.

How many more lives must be tragically lost?

13 June 2013

Texas approaches 500th execution

Last night, the state of Texas executed Elroy Chester III for multiple murders.

This was Texas's 499th execution since the 1976 Supreme Court ruling that reinstated the death penalty as an option in this country.

So that state now approaches the grim milestone of execution #500. According to the current execution schedule, Kimberly McCarthy is next on the list, with her lethal injection scheduled for June 26.

500 executions in 37 years. That's more than four times the number of executions performed to date by Virginia, which is in second place with a "mere" 110.

And, although Texas Governor Rick Perry likes to brag about his execution record, it really is nothing to be proud of.

It simply makes no sense to kill someone in order to demonstrate that killing is wrong.

It's revenge, not true justice.

12 June 2013

Privacy is a human right


In the wake of the NSA surveillance scandal, everyone is talking about personal privacy.

When I brought up the subject recently on my Facebook page, a wise person commented that privacy should be a human right.

In fact, it is a human right, enshrined in Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
While President Obama is correct when he tells us that we must strike a balance between privacy and security, the administration needs to keep in mind that privacy is essential to freedom, and security without freedom is the antithesis of what our Founding Fathers intended.

As Benjamin Franklin once said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

So what do we deserve?