Letter to Rep. Thompson urging him to expand hate crimes for LGBT.

3/6/2013

The Honorable Bennie Thompson

3607 Medgar Evers Blvd

Jackson, MS 39213

Representative Thompson,

Thank you very much for asking the FBI to help investigate the murder of Marco McMillian for possible hate crimes that extend further than the laws of Mississippi can reach. I am proud to have you as my Representative and you obviously care about your constituents.

Until Mississippi includes Sexual Orientation in Miss Code Ann §§ 99-19-301 no LGBT persons are safe unless the Federal Government agrees to prosecute the crime.

The law currently reads:

The penalty for any felony or misdemeanor shall be subject to enhancement as provided in Sections 99-19-301 through 99-19-307 if the felony or misdemeanor was committed because of the actual or perceived race, color, ancestry, ethnicity, religion, national origin or gender of the victim.

I beg of you to please help LGBT people by introducing a bill that will include Sexual Orientation as an enhancement for hate crimes.

The FBI released their Hate Crime Statistics for 2011 in December 2012 and found hate crimes committed against gay men and lesbians increased from 1,277 in 2010 to 1,293 in 2011.

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/fbi-reported-hate-crimes-based-on-sexual-orientation-on-the-rise

Currently only five states (Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Wyoming) have laws addressing sexual orientation as hate crimes.

The FBI opened an investigation into the murder of James Craig Anderson in 2011 saying the bureau wants to “determine whether federal civil rights crimes occurred”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Craig_Anderson

Why should we need help from the FBI to protect the people of Mississippi?

Sincerely,

Nathan Wilson

Jackson, MS

Flaws with the Amicus Brief filed by the Family Research Council in Hollingsworth v. Perry

 

After reading the Amicus Brief filed by the Family Research Council in Hollingsworth v. Perry challenging Proposition 8. I feel this brief did more harm than good for the Petitioners by taking a more aggressive approach with its filing.

The merits of Hollingsworth v. Perry should and will have a separate article coming soon. I just decided to tackle this Brief first because it was the one that got on my nerves the most.

It is worth noting that I do no not apply any case code for my thoughts which might discredit this article to some of its audience. I simply applied logic which as we know sometimes has no place or standing from our Judiciary.

There are obviously better skilled and more litigious minds with greater understanding and/or arguments. However, these are my opinions.

The district court conceded that “some gay men and lesbians have married members
of the opposite sex.” Order at 80. The right to enter
into a marriage that would be recognized under
Proposition 8 “is not restricted to (self-identified)
heterosexual couples,” Andersen, 138 P.3d at 991, n.
1, but extends to all adults without regard to “their
sexual orientation.” Id. at 997. The classification in
Proposition 8 is not between heterosexuals and
homosexuals, but between opposite-sex couples and
same-sex couples.

 

The merits of Hollingsworth Brief argue “that countless Californians of goodwill have opted in good faith to preserve the traditional definition of marriage…”. I suppose the Petitioners care not with regards to the legitimacy of these “marriages” rather they find solace in knowing that they had entered matrimony as members of opposite sex. This by its very declaration has acknowledged an already evident nail in the coffin for “traditional marriage”.

Proposition 8, those justifications include, inter alia,
the interests in preserving traditional marriage,
channeling procreative sexual activity into a stable
social and cultural environment in which the
children so procreated may be raised and providing
the benefits of dual-gender parenting. None of those
justifications betrays an intent or purpose to harm
homosexuals.

 

We have already established in this very brief an intentional (?) undermining of the “traditional marriage” by homosexuals. There is no Constitutional requirement for married couples of opposite sex to procreate. This obviously, is a private matter which the Supreme Court first ruled on an individual’s right to privacy in 1965, as “privacy” is implied in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments (Due Process Clause).

It should not be surprising that, with the
exception of the Second Circuit’s decision in Windsor,
no federal court of appeals (and no state court
applying federal equal protection analysis) has
concluded that homosexuals are members of a
suspect (or quasi-suspect) class. They do not meet
the standards applicable to such classifications. This
Court has identified four characteristics that suspect
classes commonly share: (1) a history of
discrimination; (2) a trait that “bears no relation to
ability to perform or contribute to society[;]” (3) an
immutable trait; and (4) political powerlessness.
City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center,
473 U.S. 432, 440-46 (1985); Lyng v. Castillo, 477

 

So, homosexuals do not meet the requirement for quasi-suspect class? We can help break this down into realistic thought:

(1)  a history of discrimination;

Violence against LGBT people

Matthew Shepard

Gay man Brutally Beaten In Queens Taken Off Life Support

California teen admits killing gay classmate

Catholic Preschool Boots Child Because Parents Are Lesbians

(2)   a trait that “bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society[;]”

A Donor Deferred: The Lifetime Ban on Blood Donations from Gay Men

Where is Gay Adoption Legal?

Boy Scouts will not allow gays to join (Although this issue is being reevaluated it is still worth mentioning.)

(3)  an immutable trait; and

Sexual Orientation and the Politics of Biology: A Critique of the Argument of Immutability

The “Gay Gene” and Evolution: A Problem?

(4)  political powerlessness.

Let’s not be naive.

California’s Constitution admits there is a potential for discrimination based on sexual orientation and has statues to protect LGBT people from employment discrimination in both public and private sector.

Furthermore, California’s Constitution even acknowledges the potential for discrimination based on sexual orientation for housing. It has statues to protect LGBT people under these circumstances.

Of even greater significance is the
Legislature’s enactment of the Domestic Partner Act
and the amendments thereto. Fam. Code § 297 et
seq. The Domestic Partner Act, as amended,
recognizes domestic partnerships between members
of the same sex, creates a mechanism for registering
such partnerships and provides that registered
domestic partners “shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the
same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under
law, whether they derive from statutes,
administrative regulations, court rules, government
policies, common law, or any other provisions or
sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon
spouses.” Fam. Code § 297.5.

I bring your attention to legal doctrine called Separate but equal. This included in the brief does nothing but justify that LGBT Rights are Civil Rights.

My Response To MS SOS For Declaring Robert E. Lee Day

You might remember earlier last year Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann tried to engage in voter suppression which was ultimately struck down by a Federal Court.

Yesterday I became aware that Delbert Hosemann authorized Robert E. Lee Day to be observed the same day as Dr. Martin Luther King, JR. Day.

This is my response:

The Equity of DOMA?

With all of the recent talk about the DOMA cases going before the Supreme Court later this month it is worth understanding that DOMA is divided into different provisions:

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

When articles are published about DOMA they often do not offer specifics about the provision which its context is intended. It is interesting that the cases being discussed lately challenge either Section 2 or Section 3.

Among the many cases that have applied for a certiorari, I have outlined only two below.

Proposition 8

In terms of Proposition 8 which was won by popular vote in California bans any same-sex or domestic partnerships performed after November 5^th, 2008 I assume there was some legislation in the state which allowed for marriage equality at some point.

Consequently this was appealed to the Supreme Court of California and was upheld but kept the existing same-sex marriages that were legally performed. So some people missed that boat obviously.

The Supreme Court of California’s ruling was then appealed to the United States District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker and was over turned on grounds it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution.

This decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and in a 2-1 decision affirmed Judge Walker’s holding. Proponents filed a petition of certiorari for review.

What this means:

Prop 8 clearly challenges Section 2 of DOMA, should the Supreme Court deny certiorari then the Ninth Circuit ruling is affirmed and then same-sex marriage will be the law of the land once again in California.

Denying certiorari poses problems for other States which have passed Constitutional Amendments by popular vote that bans same-sex marriage because hypothetically advocacy groups can appeal those Amendments and this issue could repeat itself like Prop 8 did and eventually land at the front door of the Supreme Court once again. So this effectively puts the Court into a corner for a ruling on how it interprets the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.  Keep in mind it is incredibly difficult to get a case before the Supreme Court only a very small fraction of cases are granted certiorari. In fact, the statistical estimate of denial is 98-99%.

So should the appeal process go before a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (other than the Ninth Circuit) and the State’s Constitutional Amendment is affirmed, then later the Supreme Court later denies a writ of certiorari then that is pretty much the final nail in the coffin for marriage equality, unless there is a Constitutional Amendment or an Act of Congress. So basically nothing will change.

Windsor v. United States

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in 2007 after 40 years of partnership. They were married in 2007 in Toronto then in 2009 Spyer died, at the time New York (where they were both residents) legally recognized same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. After Spyer death, Windsor was required to pay over $363,000 in federal taxes for her inheritance because Section 3 of DOMA existed.

This case followed a similar path that Prop 8 did with virtually the same result that Section 3 of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals again citing the Equal Protection Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment.

What this means:

If the Supreme Court rules that Section 3 is unconstitutional then the Federal Government will then will have to recognize same-sex marriages that are legal in that respective State.

So this ruling of Section 3 will potentially force the government to respect perfectly legal same-sex marriages and allow them to the ability to enjoy the same benefits afforded to all married people. It is worth noting, (from my understanding) that this ruling will only apply in a State that allows same-sex marriage or a State that recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Romney To End Hospital Visitation Rights

This week the Romney Campaign confirmed it would let States decide whether to allow visitation from same-sex partners for hospital visits, citing the Tenth Amendment all the while completely ignoring the Fourteenth Amendment.

According to Bay Buchanan, a Romney adviser:

“Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage.”

So Mitt Romney wants to have a limited government and allow states to make up their own mind to handle “state issues” but needs a federal amendment to make good on some pledges he signed while running for the nomination. Basically shooting the bird to all the states that have already allowed same-sex marriage including the very state he was Governor. After all, he has a special interest groups helping him write his check to become President. So he is selling some magic beans of “limited government” and “state’s rights” to John and Jane Q. Public.

This is why I think most Republicans and pretty much every member of the Tea Party are a joke because these people claim they are all about the Constitution but where were they when Bush suspended Habeas corpus?

Republicans scream to the top of their lungs about state’s rights and limited government, yet they lean on DOMA for life support to keep the evil gay marriage out of their neighborhood.

Barack Obama has gone out of his way to support the LGBT community which was not limited to signing an executive order in April 2010 that all hospitals receiving government funding be required to recognize gay and lesbians.

The callous act of even threatening to suspend this executive order is exactly why we do not need a Romney Administration anywhere near the White House.

Why Bob Barr Is a Tool

Generally I have a little more respect for Libertarians than I do for Republicans. Mainly because they are the only conservative base that will openly embrace marriage equality.

I was living in Atlanta in 2004 and was taken off guard when I learned that Barr had abandoned the Republican Party and endorsed the Libertarian candidate at the time.

After all, this was the man who authored and sponsored The Defense of Marriage Act then later apologized for it at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention where he ran an unsuccessful bid for President.

Not only did he do a complete turn around with marriage equality by abandoning DOMA for the Respect for Marriage Act. He also adopted a more relaxed view of medical marijuana and was hired in 2009 as a lobbyist for MPP to overturn a bill he authored.

So he continues this love-hate relationship with the Republican Party for a few years then in 2012 dumps the Libertarians for his old friend The GOP. I assume only because he realized there was no way he would ever get elected again on this third-party ticket in Georgia. So to reestablish his loyalty to the GOP he endorses Newt Gingrich for President and calls for other Libertarians to deflect and support Newt and not the more favorable candidate, Ron Paul.

Clearly he is a career politician and only supported Newt because they are both from Georgia and is obviously considering another bid for Congress.