I hate it when people are treated as something less because of who they are. Stories like this really piss me off:
A judge in Malawi has imposed a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison with hard labour on a gay couple convicted of gross indecency and unnatural acts.
Unbelievable:
The case has sparked international condemnation and a debate about homosexuality in the country.
The British government, Malawi's largest donor, expressed its "dismay" at the sentences, but has not withdrawn aid.
The US state department, meanwhile, said the case was "a step backwards in the protection of human rights in Malawi".
Here's what this judge had to say:
Handing down sentence in the commercial capital, Blantyre, Judge Nyakwawa Usiwa-Usiwa told the pair: "I will give you a scaring sentence so that the public be protected from people like you, so that we are not tempted to emulate this horrendous example."
"We are sitting here to represent the Malawi society, which I do not believe is ready at this point in time to see its sons getting married to other sons or conducting engagement ceremonies," said the judge.
And outside the courtroom:
There were shouts of "You got what you deserve!" and "Fourteen years is not enough, they should get 50!"
I really have nothing to say. I'm not dismayed. It's beyond that. Somethings that happen on a day to day basis give you hope. Others, like this, make you shake your head, bury your head in your hands, and reflect about what is it about society that perpetuates these outlooks. In much of the western world, I believe we are moving beyond biases against race, creed, sexual orientation, or, at the very least, making a concerted effort to make progress. We must not leave our other brothers behind.
There's no doubt that I have been critical of President Obama since this blog's inception, but I think he got this one right. Obama extended hospital visitation rights to same-sex partners:
President Obama mandated Thursday that nearly all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and respect patients' choices about who may make critical health-care decisions for them, perhaps the most significant step so far in his efforts to expand the rights of gay Americans.
While I don't know how successful his repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the armed services has been, I think that this will be successful in bridging the gap for the civil rights of the gay and lesbian community or at least make it an issue that needs to be settled. I do, however, wonder if this will bring up a bigger issue over gay marriage. Critics of the decision are saying that it undermines the definition of marriage. Gays aren't allowed to marry though. Marriage shouldn't be an exclusive right. I'm not sure how the mandate was worded, but it could open up a can of worms in regards to who is designated as a visitor or what qualifies that right.
Regardless, I think it is a positive step because it will allow gays to have visitation rights. I still approach it with caution though because there is a much bigger issue lurking in the grassy knoll.
Barack Obama has taken a stand against an anti-gay bill in Uganda:
"We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are -- whether it's here in the United States or ... more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda," Obama told the National Prayer Breakfast.
Obama has made a strong push for gay rights in the last week, following his State of the Union speech last week.
"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to," McCain told an audience of college students during the "Hardball" college tour on MSNBC.
I guess Obama might accomplish something. Meanwhile, our economy is in the tank, our deficit is ballooning every day, and we have multiple wars with more seemingly on the horizon.
As I previewed earlier, today was Obama's State of the Union speech. In the speech, which lasted well over an hour, Obama discussed a wide range of topics, from healthcare, the economy, gay rights, a high speed rail, the supreme court and national security. What I want to do is see reactions over the different issues.
“This is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became,” he said. “I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering what’s in it for them.”
It doesn't appear like he's getting a favorable response.
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said that, after watching the speech, health reform appeared unlikely to pass as one comprehensive package.
"I think right now it's less than 50-50," she said of a consolidated bill passing. "It's very hard to see a path forward in the current arrangement."
The healthcare bill has been much maligned. I personally felt that the senate was pushing it when there were other issues that were more prevalent such as the economy. I've heard criticisms from both sides and statistics and what not, but I have absolutely no idea what the bill entails. If the senate wants public support, it's important that the public know clearly how they will be affected by it. John McCain criticized the Obama administration for promising transparency, but not delivering. The healthcare issue is exhibit A.
Economy Obama has called for a new jobs bill:
Gay Rights
John McCain's response:
“In his State of the Union address, President Obama asked Congress to repeal the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. I am immensely proud of, and thankful for, every American who wears the uniform of our country, especially at a time of war, and I believe it would be a mistake to repeal the policy.
“This successful policy has been in effect for over fifteen years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy.”
President Obama will kick off his post-State of the Union tour with what aides describe as a major economic announcement -- $8 billion to begin building a high-speed rail infrastructure in multiple states.
The money is a "downpayment" on the rail system, officials said, and will go to local governments for distribution. A total of 13 major areas will benefit from the project, whose reach will be felt in 31 states, the administration said.
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections."
Justice Alito was not very pleased:
"Not true, not true," he appeared to say, as he shook his head and furrowed his brow.
Conservative legal groups aren't happy either:
"The President's swipe at the Supreme Court was a breach of decorum, and represents the worst of Washington politics -- scapegoating 'special interest' bogeymen for all that ails Washington in attempt to silence the diverse range of speakers in our democracy," said Bradley A. Smith, a former FEC member and chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics.
Citizens United had this to say:
"President Obama's remarks tonight reflect a woeful disregard for the fundamental First Amendment rights of American citizens," said Citizens United President David N. Bossie.
But he added: "That being said, I absolutely support President Obama in his call for a ban on spending in American elections by foreign corporations. While I unreservedly support the rights of every American citizen to have their voice heard, there is no place for foreign actors in our political process."
It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court ruling will be challenged in the future.
National Security Here's a taste of the reaction for National Security:
David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official and foreign policy expert, said Wednesday night that he “can’t recall a state of the union that devoted less time or attention to foreign policy issues than this one.”
