I've had this post brewing for some time, but only felt inspired to write it after watching some of the Logo/HRC debate and reading some of the coverage of it.

This starts with same-sex marriage. Those who know me or who have been faithful readers for a few years know that I don't think much of this issue. It's not a make or break issue for me in a candidate, and it's really not a very pressing issue to me in general, except in fighting back attempts to make same-sex marriage illegal because that's a dangerous slippery slope that could become a gateway to limiting other rights.

And I'm not at all saying that marriage is a basic right or a basic need. That would be silly. Basic needs are food, shelter and safety. Basic rights are those found in the Constitution and its amendments. Same-sex marriage should be legal, but it's not exactly life or death.

So this brings me to my point. Most of the Democratic candidates who participated in the Logo/HRC 'debate' said they did not support marriage equality and used the excuse that "the country just isn't ready yet" or "we're just not there yet" as justification.

Poppycock.

How can you know if you're not ready for something unless you try it and see? And why does 'the country' (code for heterosexual moderates) have to be ready for something that has absolutely no impact on their individual lives anyway?

If my yoga practice has taught me anything, it's that we are capable of doing so much that we might not have otherwise thought possible until we tried. Massachusetts has not fallen into the Atlantic, people aren't dying in the streets in Boston and Amherst and Waltham (shout out to my Brandeis reader!). How were Massachusett-ians(?) any more or less 'ready' for same-sex marriage than anyone else in this country?

It's not that 'we're not there yet' or that 'the country isn't ready'. There may be a lot of people, perhaps even a clear majority, of American voters who are still a little uncomfortable with marriage equality. But is it really fair to use their mild discomfort (and it really is mostly mild according to polling) as an easy out to restrict some rights from one group of citizens?

If you're personally uncomfortable with something, own up to it. Don't hide behind some amorphous nonsense excuse about how other people may or may not feel about the issue. And once you've done that, get over yourself. Seriously. Whatever happened to the greater good?

There were a lot of timid politicians who said that the country wasn't ready for women to vote prior to 1920, or that we just weren't there yet in 1963, a year before Congress passed and President Johnson signed sweeping Civil Rights reforms into law.

You know what? It turns out the United States populace was actually ready for those and other major advances. We just didn't know it till we tried it.

The U.S. democracy has always been a great experiment. There have been lots of rocky points along the way, especially at those times when the oppressed aggressively sought fairness and justice. But the Union endured, just as it will when some politicians with backbones finally grow a pair, pass sweeping pro-equality laws, and the country once again realizes that same-sex marriage, much like interracial marriage before it, is really no big deal.

And on that note, I'll also encourage you, my faithful reader, to try something - anything - you never thought you could do. Stepping out of your comfort zone can be a wonderfully freeing and enlightening experience.

And you don't even need to attend a yoga class with me to prove it.

Open to grace.

Labels: challenge, change, civil rights, equality, fear, history, human rights, LGBT, opening to grace, Pres-08, social justice, yoga

I no longer support Bill Richardson for President.

Despite his lengthy resume and respectable public service, the man is not fit to be President of the United States.

My faith in his candidacy faltered during an early debate, when he cited Byron White as his model Supreme Court Justice. Justice White wrote a dissent in Roe v. Wade and was joined by eventual Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

One major faux pas was perhaps excusable, but tonight Bill Richardson swallowed his foot up to the knee when he repeatedly insisted on his belief that sexual orientation is a "lifestyle choice" in the Human Rights Campaign/Logo Democratic debate.

I know it's rather anathema for me to say this on a progressive blog, but domestic issues are far more important to me than ending the Iraq war. Don't misunderstand, the war has been a perilous, unwarranted folly that I believe must be brought to a swift conclusion. It's just not the issue on which I'm going to base my vote.

Healthcare, education, jobs and civil rights are all far more important to me because they impact my everyday life. I don't have friends or family members currently serving, and I don't begrudge one bit those who do and for whom the war is the #1 issue. For them, Bill Richardson might still be a viable candidate based on his UN experience and his promise to end the war the day he is inaugurated.

But for me, if you don't get issues as simple as reproductive justice or full equality, you can never have my full support. Hell, even Giuliani is better on these issues than Richardson (well, OK, not quite).

So I hereby rescind and renounce my previous endorsement of Bill Richardson for President and move myself firmly back into the Undecided column.

John Edwards is saying many of the right things (except for an awkward performance tonight), and I was willing to give Chris Dodd a closer look until he didn't show for tonight's debate.

Rest assured I will update this space with additional thoughts or an endorsement as the process moves forward, especially now that it's looking more likely that the caucuses and primaries could start as early as this December. Yikes!

Labels: Bill Richardson, civil rights, equality, LGBT, Pres-08, Roe, social justice

I posted my updated resume to the site; there's a link on every page of m2powered.com. Please refer any prospective employers here.

I'm also going to update the writing samples page to include my guest opinion on pay equity from a couple of weeks ago. That link also appears on every page of this site.

Labels: career, change, equality, jobs, personal

I wrote an opinion piece on pay equity that was published today in the Arizona Daily Star. Go read it.

Labels: civil rights, equality, journalism, minimum wage, social justice, women's rights

From a comment I just posted over on Rum, Romanism and Rebellion:

Currently, people with disabilities are paid using a fuzzy formula that calculates their pay rate based on their functional ability to do the jobs assigned to them. My understanding is the hubbub is mostly centered on people with developmental disabilities who live in institutional settings or group homes and spend their days in sheltered workshops or "dayhab" centers. The items they produce in these settings are sometimes sold as a means to support the organizations providing these jobs for people with developmental disabilities.

The people with developmental disabilities who are the focus of this debate probably have never bought their own loaf of bread. Just the same, they deserve the same rights and basic human dignity as anyone else. The Arc's argument about the minimum wage applying to everyone helping people with developmental disabilities integrate into the larger community is spot-on. This is a group of people who are hidden from the public, often incorrectly assumed to be 'useless', 'unproductive', 'asexual', or worse.

Truth is, given the opportunity, many (if not most) people with developmental disabilities could and would lead very productive, happy and healthy lives. Part of the way to achieve that goal is to allow them access to the same resources as their peers without developmental disabilities.

Frankly, the fact that there's even a debate about this seems silly to me.

I guess you can take the boy out of the 'disability project' but you can't take the 'disability project' out of the boy...

Labels: accessibility, equality, human rights, minimum wage, people with disabilities