Marriage Discrimination

This entry was written on the repercussions of legalizing same-sex marriage.  The author states that legalizing same-sex marriage would negatively impact the sanctity of marriage, the nuclear family, gender roles, and the children that may be raised by homosexual couples.

While I can appreciate her personal disapproval of same-sex marriages, I  do not believe that legislation should be based on religious teachings.  As I wrote in a previous entry, religious legislation places limitations on the rights of society as a whole.  I would expect such biased legislation from a theocratic nation, not a democratic republic like the United States.

Marriage discrimination is not limited to same-sex marriage, but extends to interracial, interfaith, and interdenominational marriage.  In the United States, interfaith and interdenominational marriages are neither prohibited nor regulated by the government, but may be subject to religious authority.  For instance, Islamic Law allows for men to marry non-Muslim women while prohibiting women from marrying non-Muslim men.

Same-sex marriage seems to be following the path laid out by Loving v. Virginia, a case heard by the Supreme Court in 1967.  The Supreme Court found anti-miscegenation legislation to be unconstitutional and the case eliminated discriminatory marriage restrictions based on race.  Race and gender are both pre-determined characteristics and it is generally accepted that neither trait should restrict one's rights.  I personally believe that sexual orientation is an innate trait and that those with "alternative orientations" should be allotted the same rights as the rest of the population.  Even if I believed that homosexuality was a conscious decision, I cannot see why such a marriage should be treated differently by the government.

The Sanctity of Marriage

The author explains that while she is personally opposed to same-sex marriage, she does not believe that homosexuals should be ridiculed or ostracized for their views on same-sex marriage.  One issue I have with her statement is that it implies that only homosexuals support the elimination of marriage discrimination.  In reality, 48 percent of Americans support legalizing same-sex marriage while fewer than 4 percent of Americans identify themselves as homosexual, bisexual, or transgender. 

As far as I can tell, legalizing same-sex marriage would only have a tangible impact on homosexuals.  I doubt that a majority of the 52 percent of Americans that oppose same-sex marriage have actually met a homosexual, let alone a homosexual couple.  Legislation disallowing same-sex marriage is intended to prevent approximately 10 million people from offending the delicate sensibilities of 163 million people they may never knowingly meet or interact with.  I would like to note that the Constitution does not guarantee citizens the right to live a life free from religiously dictated moral discomfort. 

The author suggests that same-sex marriage "greatly weakens the definition and respect for the institution of marriage" and that it should not be taken lightly.  I fail to see how same-sex marriage would weaken the definition of marriage as the United States did not define marriage as a union between one man and one woman until 1996 when the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law.  Also, it seems a bit naive to me for the author to insinuate that there is widespread respect for the institution of marriage.  We live in a country that allows you to be joined in holy matrimony from the comfort of your vehicle at a drive through chapel.  It is also completely legal for a man to buy a wife from an "international marriage agency."  I could see how these two acts could be viewed as reverence for the act of marriage because, you know, because nothing says love like the sound of an idling car and because buying women off the internet sounds totally legit. 

The author affirms that "marriage has always been--and should always be--a ceremony that joins together one man and one woman."  While I was not raised in a Christian household, nor am I a Christian now, I know that statement to be false.  I mention that I am not Christian because I am certain the author is basing the statement on what she believes the Bible says about marriage.  There are a number of Biblically defined forms of marriage, most of which have been rejected by modern society.

She also claims that homosexual couples are threatening to "wipe out the foundation lines of marriage," presumably because having a matching set of genitalia limits a couple's ability to shoulder the responsibilities of marriage and therefore ineligible to enjoy the rights or benefits of marriage.

The Nuclear Family

The author defines "family" as a household consisting of one man, one woman, and their biological children.  She focuses completely on the idea that same-sex couples are altering how "family" is defined, but I have to assume that she also disapproves of single-parent households.  These single-parent households, even those including households headed by widows, are considered non-traditional.  Obviously, her opposition would also have to be extended to families with foster children or adopted children as they are not true members of the family unit as defined above. 

The author considers procreation to be an "understood expectation" of married couples.  Perhaps the Defense of Marriage Act should be amended to disallow infertile members of the population from marrying as well.  We must, after all, preserve the human race by only allowing fertile individuals to marry.  Procreation is as necessary today as it was a few thousand years ago and the 104 thousand adoptable children in the United States should be ignored because adopted children are somehow inferior to biological children.

Gender Roles

The author explains that the "children...brought into the circle of gay couples would certainly grow confused about gender roles and expectations..."  Perhaps I am mistaken, but the gender roles and expectations referred to have been rejected by the general population for a number of years.  Marriage is about the commitment and partnership between two people, not about who is expected to maintain the home and who is expected to earn a salary. 

I suppose I should forget about raising a family because my husband is in the military.  It would only confuse our hypothetical children because I would, for the majority of the time, be the only parent present.  Although, I suppose that we should never have been permitted to marry in the first place because infertility negates the purpose of our marriage.  We could always adopt children, but that would be too non-traditional and obviously ruin their lives.

Children

The author writes about how we should think about the children when considering the legalization of same-sex marriage.  She attempts to prove that children would be negatively impacted if raised by homosexual parents, but only provides a weak sentiment about the importance of gender roles in a child's development and the severity of its effects.  The American Psychological Association determined that the effectiveness of parenting is unrelated to a parent's sexual orientation.  The study found that children raised by homosexual parents were just as likely to flourish as children raised by heterosexual parents.  This either indicates that the author's claim that children are negatively impacted is false or that heterosexual couples should not be allowed to raise children either. 

As stated previously, there are over 100 thousand children in the United States waiting to be adopted.  Refusing to allow homosexual couples to adopt children based on what feels true is inadequate, especially when doing so requires that you ignore consistent research.  Perhaps the individuals that abhor the idea of same-sex couples raising children should seriously consider whether or not being raised by the government is truly in the best interest of these children.

The Future of Marriage

The author concludes her entry by implying that the legalization of same-sex marriages would allow for future alterations to marriage.  She naively asserts that it will degrade the act of marriage and could potentially lead to marriages based on mutual legal benefits.  Heterosexual couples have been degrading the "sanctity of marriage" for years and already marry for a number of legal and monetary benefits.   

She continues by explaining that nothing could prevent the legalization of polygamy and polyandry if same-sex marriage were legalized.  Polygamy is a Biblical form of marriage, so I can only assume that repealing the laws that banned it would actually be taking a step toward restoring the "original" Biblical definition of marriage.

P.S.  I would like to note that "The Other Colbert Report" is a misleading title for the author's blog.  Its entries are neither witty nor informative and certainly not what one would consider to be a parody of the liberal viewpoint.  The only semblance to The Colbert Report that I found was a shared surname and use of "truthiness."  While Stephen Colbert uses it as a tool to help inform people, the author uses it because she actually believes that what she is saying is true.

P.P.S.  After completing this entry I noticed that "The Threat of Same Sex Marriage" is a slightly altered version of the author's previous entry.  Neither entry really tells the audience anything and any claims made are merely conjecture.  I'm not entirely sure why the author chose to reuse the previous assignment, especially without actually adding anything to her stance on the topic.

The E.R.A. and the Implied Rights of Women

"Every constitution written since the end of World War II includes a provision that men and women are citizens of equal stature. Ours does not...We just have the equal protection clause, which everyone knows was not meant in the 1860s to change anything with regard to women's status.  Women didn't get to vote until 1920." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Interview on January 31, 2005.

Next month marks the 90th year anniversary of the introduction of what is presently known as the Equal Rights Amendment.  The proposed amendment, originally known as the Lucretia Mott Amendment, was first introduced in 1923.

"Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction." - Lucretia Mott Amendment

The Lucretia Mott Amendment was presented to ten consecutive sessions of Congress between 1923 and 1942.  The proposal was revised and reintroduced in both chambers of Congress as the Alice Paul Amendment in 1943.

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." - Alice Paul Amendment

The Alice Paul Amendment was presented to fifteen consecutive sessions of Congress between 1943 and 1971.  Just as its predecessor had, the proposed amendment failed to gain the approval of Congress.  The proposal was, once again, reworded before it was reintroduced in both chambers of Congress as the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972.  

This final revision of the amendment was approved by Congress and subsequently submitted to the states for ratification.  Of the 38 states required for its inclusion in the Constitution, only 35 have done so.  Today the proposed amendment continues to be referred to as the Equal Rights Amendment and is known to the 112th session of Congress as Senate Joint Resolution 21 and House Joint Resolution 69:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: 

Article— 

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. 

Section 3. This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.’

While I have yet to come across what I would consider to be a legitimate argument against the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, I have long lost count of the number of irrational arguments against its ratification that I have read over the years.

“I never doubted that equal rights was the right direction.  Most reforms, most problems, are complicated.  But to me there is nothing complicated about ordinary equality.” – Alice Paul, Interview in 1972

Some have reasoned that women were granted equal rights under the law when voting rights were extended to the female population and that further amending the Constitution is unnecessary.  Others have maintained that the inclusion of any such bill would only serve to further restrict women’s rights.  The first group believes that the proposed amendment would merely maintain the status quo while the second group believes that the proposed amendment would revoke existing rights, but both groups base their opposition on what I consider to be disjointed logic.

Until the Equal Rights Amendment is made law, women will continue be allotted a number of implied rights and a single irrevocable right.  While many women today are satisfied with the implication of equal rights that cannot be denied or abridged, it was not a sentiment shared by those that fought for our right to vote.

Alice Paul, a paramount suffragist leader, felt so strongly against settling for implied rights that she wrote the first two versions of the Equal Rights Amendment and introduced them in Congress for 49 consecutive years.  While Alice Paul devoted 7 years of her life to ensuring that we be guaranteed the right to vote, she spent 51 years of her life attempting to amend the Constitution to explicitly state that the rights of both men and women be irrevocable.

The Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the Untied States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 

While many people assume that the 14th Amendment protects all citizens against a number of well-known rights, this is untrue to at least one member of the Supreme Court.  According to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the 14th Amendment excludes women and men of a certain persuasion from equal protection under the law.

It is important to note that his interpretation of the 14th Amendment is not merely his personal opinion.  I say this because his position in our federal government requires that he apply his understanding of the Constitution to cases presented to the Supreme Court.  This means that if enough of his fellow Justices concurred with his interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protections Clause, women face the potential loss of each and every one of their implied rights.  The Equal Rights Amendment aims to guarantee these rights by eliminating the need to interpret ambiguous words like “citizen” and “person.

Gender Discrimination:

"...until opportunity is as free from sex discrimination as the right to vote finally came to be, no man has any right to criticize women for failure to measure up to men." - Mary Barnett Gilson

While many consider gender discrimination to be a non-issue in modern society, I believe that it is prevalent in the United States.  Women are regularly required to provide proof that implied rights are legitimate and constitutional rights that are extended to women by the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court heard Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education et al. in 1999.  The suit sought damages for sexual harassment by a classmate at a public elementary school.  The teacher, the principle, and the county school board refused to investigate the claims of harassment and made no plan to prevent harassment in the future.  The original decision by the Eleventh Circuit in 1994 was found to be erroneous by the Supreme Court and was reversed.

I was baffled that it took five years of legal battles to affirm that federally funded educators have a responsibility to protect a child from  gender discrimination and sexual harassment.  If the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment were truly meant to be extended to society as a whole, why are women forced to spend years fighting through the legal system to verify that these rights are applicable to women?  Is it really necessary for me to take a blatant case of gender discrimination to the Supreme Court and if so, how can any person consider the implication of rights to be adequate?

Loss of Implied Rights:

Without the Equal Rights Amendment, the Constitution does not explicitly state that implied rights cannot be altered or revoked by Congress.  On a number of occasions Congress has sought to maim equal opportunity in education, prevent the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, rejected the Paycheck Fairness Act, and have refused to ratify the United Nations' Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

It is more than reasonable to assume that, as a whole, Congress hopes to prevent women from attaining equal opportunities in education, accessing programs and services intended to aid victims of domestic assault, or receiving equal pay for equal work.  If Congress can legally oppress women by denying implied rights, what will prevent Congressional membership from further eliminating freedoms enjoyed by women?

There is a chance that I, along with the rest of the female population, will be forced back into the home to rear children and live subservient to my husband.  The only right I would retain is the right to vote.  I am aware that such a scenario is rather unlikely, but I would like you to be aware that such a scenario is not impossible.  Many feel that the Amendment is a mere redundancy as many believe that the rights explicitly granted to men are theoretically extended to women.

Religious Opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment:

"It is only in the fundamentalist religions that women are relegated to second class.  Radical Evangelicals, Muslims, and Jews all have the same view of women." - Sally Quinn

According to this site the Equal Rights Amendment would eliminate the distinction between men and women in the eyes of the law and would restrict a woman's ability to choose "traditional roles," which I assume refers to sequestering women in their homes.

The following are scenarios deemed unacceptable by the Church:

Being made subject to compulsory military service even if they were raising small children.

I found myself completely unable to understand how the exclusion of women from the draft is positive.  I also cannot understand why the Church does not support the exemption of single fathers from the draft, but supports exempting women raising children with the support of a spouse.

Lapses in court orders for child and spousal support payments.

The mention of child and spousal support payments implies that men are denied both on the basis of gender and that this should be accepted just as it should be accepted that women are granted these payments regardless of the situation.

Weakening of sexual assault prosecutions.

Personally, I believe that the Equal Rights Amendment would strengthen sexual assault prosecutions not only for women, but also for men.  While the general public is more than ready to support a female victim of sexual assault, the injuries suffered by male victims are often belittled by society and dismissed entirely.

Loss of existing spousal benefits such as medical insurance.

If spousal benefits are currently provided to men, what proof is there that women would lose existing benefits?  Would the Equal Rights Amendment completely eliminate spousal benefits?  As far as I can tell, spousal benefits would not be even remotely threatened by the ratification of the Amendment.

Changes to the tax system that might make it more difficult financially for people to live as married couples.

I have yet to understand what changes to the tax system the article is referring to as no specific information was presented to support such an assumption.  What changes does the article refer to and how would these changes increase the financial burden placed on married couples?

The article continues on to address whether or not the Equal Rights Amendment would not prevent societal prejudice:

The ERA does not automatically guarantee equal rights…the ERA would not affect many inequities that result from attitudes and customs. It would prohibit only governmental discrimination.

I actually partially agree with the sentiment that the elimination of political discrimination would not eliminate societal discrimination.  I do, however, have to disagree with the assertion that the purpose of the Amendment is to eliminate public prejudice against a particular group of people.  The Amendment does not seek to eradicate sexism in society as the government cannot regulate the private opinions of citizens.  Perhaps this would be a legitimate concern if the Amendment required that sexist members of the population have their citizenship revoked before being banished from American soil.

Imagined Effects of Equal Rights:

Phyllis Schlafly wrote an opinion piece published in the Los Angeles Times that argues against the Equal Rights Amendment.  She implies that Congress would never have passed the proposed amendment had Rush Limbaugh and Fox News been around to tag team the Amendment to death.  I can appreciate that some consider Fox News to be as fair and balanced as their motto states, but I cannot seriously consider Rush Limbaugh to be a positive influence on anything, especially something as important as increasing awareness for anything remotely related to politics.

She claims that the Equal Rights Amendment would lead to the loss of a number of rights currently enjoyed exclusively by women.  These include exclusion from the draft, enjoying social security benefits allotted due to spousal contributions, and the assumption that men should provide for women.

Schlafly regales her readers with a story about the International Women's Year and how it supported abortions and the homosexual agenda.  She states that in 1977, an unnamed reporter asked the unnamed governor of Missouri if he supported the Equal Rights Amendment.

"I was for equal pay for equal work, but after those women went down to Houston and got tangled up with the abortionists and the lesbians, I can tell you ERA will never pass in the Show-Me State." - Supposedly Joseph P. Teasdale

It is apparent to me that the quote was meant to woo readers into believing in the opposition of the Equal Rights Amendment, but it only strengthens my support for the Amendment.  I sincerely hope that Schlafly's timeline is accurate as I was unable to find evidence proving the quote's existence outside of the article and found former Missouri Governor Teasdale based on the timeline she provided.

I find it amusing that Schlafly suggest that women should be completely satisfied with gender appropriate roles as wives and mothers when she obviously felt unfulfilled in those roles as she has spent a majority of her time outside of the home since the early 1960s. 

Instances in which Schlafly has proved to be a hypocritical and liberated woman:

1. Founder and president of Eagle Forum and Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund.
2. Author or editor of 20 books about families, feminism, nuclear strategy, education, child care, the judiciary, and foreign policy.
3. Writer of a monthly newsletter entitled The Phyllis Schlafly Report since 1967.
4. Writer of nearly 2,300 weekly columns since 1976.
5. Radio commentator of approximately 7,800 daily commentaries since 1983.
6. Host of the radio talk show "Eagle Forum Live" since 1989.
7. Weekly television commentator for CBS in the mid 1970s and for CNN in the early 1980s.
8. Writer and producer of a number of documentaries.
9. Attorney permitted to practice law in Illinois, Missouri, the District of Columbia, and the United State Supreme Court.
10. Testifier before Congress and State Legislative committees on a minimum of 50 different occasions.
11. Graduate of Washington University in 1944.
12. Graduate of Harvard University in 1945.
13. Graduate of Washington University Law School in 1978.
14. Leader of the pro-family movement called Stop ERA.
15. Delegate to eight Republican National Conventions.
16. Congressional candidate for Illinois in 1952 and 1970.

I suppose that there is a possibility that Schlefly has a deep yearning to live subservient to her family, but has chosen to sacrifice her own happiness to ensure that women all across America can pursue their one true passion in life: sammich making.

Truthiness

After reading this entry written by Hit or Miss, who proudly declares that politics are not worth her vote, I came to two conclusions:

1. She prefers truthiness to the truth.  Who needs information based on extensive research when you can make baseless statements that feel true?

2.  Her lack of interest or involvement in politics is a blessing in disguise because I personally hope that she continues to avoid casting ballots until she educates herself on these issues.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

1. truthiness (noun) 

• 1 : "truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," October 2005)  

• 2 : "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true" (American Dialect Society, January 2006)

The entry focused specifically on the inclusion of oral contraceptive coverage in the Affordable Care Act.  What the author failed to mention, most likely due to a lack of research, is that the Affordable Care Act actually put in place a mandate that requires that insurers provide access to all contraceptive medications, devices, and procedures approved by the Food and Drug Administration without cost-sharing.  I believe that this distinction should be made because reversing the contraceptive mandate would not only eliminate access to oral contraceptives, but to all FDA approved contraceptive methods.

The author apparently believes that the mandate was solely intended to prevent pregnancies in young alcoholic women attending college and to encourage them to engage in carnal relations without hesitation.  No evidence was provided to support her claim that the Obama administration sought to do either, just as no evidence was provided to prove that only college girls with insatiable appetites for alcohol and intercourse would use contraceptives.

After spending valuable nanoseconds considering the issue, the author decided that the government should not only stop encouraging the drunken trollops roaming the college campuses across the country and start concentrating on eliminating cost-sharing related to medications and treatments for chronic or fatal illnesses.  While I am in no way attempting to devalue the chronically or terminally ill, I cannot see a legitimate connection to the Affordable Care Act for a few reasons.

The Affordable Care Act altered our health care system dramatically, especially by dissolving cost-sharing for preventive care.  The law includes preventive care for chronic illnesses like cancer and diabetes, but the author believes that reactive care should have been included under these mandates.  Loss of health insurance coverage and refusal to provide health insurance were also addressed by the Affordable Care Act through mandates regarding chronic illnesses.  Additionally, there are federally funded public health programs, such as Medicaid, that require patients to pay little to no co-pays or deductibles for reactive care. 

The idea of eliminating cost-sharing for reactive care services is not, in my honest opinion, something that should or could be addressed by the Affordable Care Act.  While many people claim that they would support such a mandate, most would oppose it once they learned about the costs associated with caring for millions of people with chronic or terminal illnesses.  The Affordable Care Act was intended to decrease the cost of medical care by preventing many of these high cost illnesses and eliminating cost-sharing for reactive care would only serve to increase the cost of medical care.

Personally, I support universal health care because I believe every person should have steady access to medical care.  If millions of people oppose the contraceptive mandate, which actually saves tax dollars, how many people would oppose a mandate eliminating cost-sharing for the chronically or terminally ill once they become aware of the increased cost associated with such conditions?  If the system were altered to eliminate cost-sharing for both preventive and reactive care I imagine that universal health care would simplify the overly complicated system presently in place. I digress, however, as the issue at hand is specifically about the contraceptive mandate, not about how cost-sharing for reactive care should be eliminated.

According to a five year study performed by Princeton University, 49 percent of the pregnancies that occur annually are unintended.  In 2001, 3 million unintended pregnancies cost taxpayers $5 billion.  In contrast, contraceptive use saves approximately $19 billion annually in direct medical costs.

An article that appeared in The New England Journal of Medicine many aspects of the public cost of unintended pregnancies.  In 2008, a single birth insured by Medicaid cost taxpayers approximately $12,600 and covered prenatal care, delivery, postpartum care, and the first year of infant care.  In contrast, contraceptives for a single person cost roughly $260 in the same year.  In 2008, a $1.9 billion investment was made to fund family planning care which resulted in Medicaid saving $7 billion by reducing unplanned pregnancies.

In 2002, the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan eliminated cost-sharing for highly effective intrauterine devices, injectable contraceptives, and implants.  The elimination of cost-sharing led to a 137 percent increase in the use of these specific contraceptives and prevented approximately 1800 pregnancies.  The investment in public planning services has proven beneficial as these programs have saved taxpayers $3.74 for every dollar spent.  More than 9 million women made use of publicly funded family planning services in 2006.  An estimated 1.94 million unintended pregnancies and over 800,000 abortions were avoided in a single year.

Eliminating the contraceptive mandate would only serve to maintain or increase the cost to taxpayers.  Instead of reversing the mandate, which saves billions of tax dollars annually, perhaps the author should instead consider how the contraceptive mandate could be used to fund the elimination of cost-sharing for reactive care.  Perhaps I am mistaken, but this seems like a more logistically sound solution.

The author also states that contraceptives should not be included in the Affordable Care Act because the only condition prevented is impregnation.  According to the National Women's Law Center, most women in the United States of reproductive age make use of contraceptives and many of them do so to ensure that planned pregnancies prevent health concerns arising for either the mother or the child.  The conditions avoided by the mother include gestational diabetes, high blood pressure, and placental problems.  The conditions avoided by the child include low birth weight and pre-term birth.  It should also be noted that the interval between pregnancies is pertinent and having children too close together or too far apart can increase the risk of developing a number of complications.

On a more personal note, I would like to address the author's assumption that only an irresponsible and promiscuous woman would use contraceptives and that they do so with the sole intention of preventing pregnancy because that would obviously interfere with one's ability attend college parties, consume abnormal amounts of alcohol, and frequently fornicate.  I originally chose to respond to the author's entry on contraceptives and those that would use them because she not only managed to offend me, but managed to offend my husband as well.

This is written directly to the author:

I was prescribed oral contraceptives by my reproductive endocrinologist in May in an attempt to reduce the risk I have of developing endometrial cancer and heart disease.  I was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome seven years ago, but was unaware of the danger I put myself in by not managing the more severe symptoms I suffer from.  I have been married for almost three years and my husband encouraged me to manage my condition instead of merely living with it, especially because we hope to have children in the future. We are waiting because my husband just entered the Armed Forces and I would prefer to complete school prior to a medically aided conception.

I do not use oral contraceptives because I don't want to become pregnant, I use oral contraceptives because I hope to be blessed with a child one day.  I do not spend my nights at parties or fornicating, I spend my nights researching for assignments like these because my educational aspirations are apparently higher than yours.  The last time I left the house was to have two surgeries because the oral contraceptives indicated that I may have already developed endometrial cancer and biopsies were needed to determine whether or not that was the case.

Perhaps you should bother to educate yourself in the future to avoid spewing baseless nonsense written at a sixth grade level.

Also, please stop listening to Rush Limbaugh; he's a terrible man with terrible ideas.

The Christian Right vs. Everyone Else

“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” – Thomas Jefferson

I have forever had a complete lack of interest in organized religion beyond what I consider to be a purely academic curiosity. I trust that my beliefs are innate, that my values are based in logic, and that my morals are firmly grounded in my own consciousness.

The Christian right considers my views to be the source of the depravity plaguing our nation.  Not only am I destroying the moral fiber of this Christian nation, but I am also an arrogant and elitist communist in direct opposition to religious liberty.

The lack of Christian influence in my life has apparently also led me to be anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Religion.  According to these zealots, I am also a member of an unknown religion [despite the aforementioned claims of my hostility toward religion] with the sole purpose of destroying Christianity.

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” – Treaty of Tripoli, signed on November 4, 1796

In the United States, the term “Christian right” is used to describe the informal ultra-conservative alliance of a number of politically active Evangelical extremist groups.  This overly pious coalition believes that because Protestants founded the United States, our laws and public policy must be specifically based on the Evangelical interpretation of the teachings of Christianity.

Contrary to what the Christian right believes, this nation was neither founded by Christian men nor based on the teachings of Christianity.  Freethinkers, deists, and anti-Clerics founded our nation and sought to form a government that would support the citizens’ rights in both religious and secular endeavors.

For instance, depending on which super sacred version of the Bible you read, the act of rebellion is stated to be comparable to the sin of predicting the future or performing witchcraft.  If the United States were truly based in the Christian faith, then the rebellion against the Crown would have been considered to be an act against the Creator himself.  

 “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.” – Thomas Jefferson

The creation of The Jefferson Bible is another example of the lack of reverence the Founding Fathers had for Christianity.  Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system presented in the Bible was sound, but that this system should be separated from its supernatural elements.  Jefferson revised the Bible by taking a razor to the Gospels and editing its text to exclude what he considered to be disingenuous.

“The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.“ – Arthur C.Clarke

The Christian Coalitionof America, a prominent Christian right extremist group, states that its primary mission is to ensure that government “serves to strengthen and preserve, rather than threaten,” Evangelical families and their Christian values.

This mission may seem legitimate to some due to wording that insinuates that the government is somehow attempting to restrict the rights of Christians, however I cannot understand the logic behind the sentiment.  The Christian right as a whole supports this notion that government is somehow seeking to threaten their religious freedoms.

Their purpose is encompassed by the belief that the government has a responsibility to curb society’s morality to correspond with the morals set in place by the Bible.  The apparent belief is that government should value Christian beliefs over that of any other group and that the seizure of secular rights is justified when the protection of these rights offends Christian sensibility.

Protesting “anti-Christian bigotry” and defending “the rights of people of faith” is listed by the Christian Coalition of America as one of five political actions considered to be of the upmost importance.  The phrase “anti-Christian bigotry” refers to a sentiment amongst the Christian right that if you are not with them, you must be against them.  Defending “the rights of people of faith” refers to the support of banning actions that are considered to be sinful by the Bible.

 “Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.” – Thomas Jefferson

The following are issues championed by the Christian right as issues threatening the religious freedoms of Christians as well as destroying the morality of Christian America:

Removal of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance

The Christian right protests altering the Pledge of Allegiance, especially modifying it by removing the words “under God.”  They claim that the Pledge of Allegiance should not be altered to accommodate nonbelievers and maintain that the words “under God” are original to the Pledge of Allegiance.  The Christian right is mistaken about the history of the Pledge of Allegiance. 

Title 36 United States Code § 172 was amended on June 22, 1942 and the words “underGod” were incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance on June 14, 1954.  What they are in fact protesting is the removal of words unoriginal to the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Pledge of Allegiance was intended to allow citizens to express loyalty to the flag and the nation it represents, but the Christian right has decided that it was also intended to express American loyalty to the Christian religion.

Reversal of “ObamaCare”

The Christian right has been quite vocal about its opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  The main issue seems to be in regard to the mandate requiring that employers provided health care coverage that provides employees with access to contraceptives.  Providing contraceptives, which are obviously only used by those engaging in premarital or extramarital relations, infringes on the employer’s religious freedoms. 

Businesses like Hobby Lobby have been filing lawsuits against the Obama administration, claiming that the contraceptive mandate considerably burdens the ability of employers to exercise their religion.  These protests against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act imply that the government is somehow limiting Christian employers by requiring that they make contraceptives available to their employees.

I believe that the act is extending access to contraceptives in order to ensure that all citizens are able to make their own decisions regarding reproductive health.  In contrast, Evangelicals apparently believe that only immoral fornicators would use any form of contraceptives and that the accommodation of such sinners would make every Christian an accessory to infantile genocide because pregnancy begins even before conception. 

Apparently, the Christian right believes that every woman becomes pregnant and miscarries twelve times a year.  According to this logic, every child is virgin-born, every menstrual cycle is a life cut short, and premenstrual syndrome is a subconscious reaction triggered by maternal instincts.

Opposition of the Respect for Marriage Act

House Resolution 1116 § 598 is a proposed bill in Congress that seeks to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.  If the proposal passes the United States will be required to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages.  While this would not require individual states to recognize the validity of these marriages.

The Christian right is strongly against the proposal because they believe that same-sex marriage degrades the sanctity of Christian marriage.  A commonly cited argument against redefining marriage is that civil unions are good enough for those sinners and that tainting the good name of marriage will only incur the wrath of God.

I have never understood the desire of the Christian right to monopolize marriage.  The earliest recorded instance of marriage is from Sumerians and predates Christianity.  This would indicate that the concept of marriage is not original to the Bible and therefore not a religious union and should not be defined in a way to exclude on the basis of religious belief.

Those against same-sex marriage often cite Leviticus 18:22, which states that one should “not lie with a man as one lies with a woman.”  I have not yet heard a single person cite Leviticus 20:13, which states that if “a man lies with a man…they must be put to death.”  In what seems to be an effort to lessen the executioner’s guilt, it adds as that “their blood will be on their own heads.”

I would also like to note that the Book of Leviticus lists a number of abominations in addition to that of the private relations that take place between two men.  Most are ignored by today's Christians because they are considered to be archaic and that God would no longer consider these acts to be sinful or punishable by death.  I appreciate how God gives free passes to heterosexuals, but just can’t get past that whole “gay thing.”

Abominations that are commonly ignored:

Eating water-dwelling creatures without fins and scales.

Eating any creature that can lay eggs or fly.

Eating any creature that slithers or crawls.

Eating any creature with four or more legs.

Eating leftovers that are three days old.

Eating pork.

Eating with Hebrews if you are an Egyptian.

Taking from the collection bowl.

Remarrying your first husband.

Fornicating with a married woman.

Eating anything after touching something dirty.

Wearing clothing of the opposite gender.

Being stubborn.

Being proud.

Lying.

Gossiping.

Marrying someone that isn’t Christian.

Charging interest on loans.

“To give opinions unsupported by reasons might appear dogmatical.” – George Washington

Do not mistake my opinions as anti-Christian sentiment.  An adamant belief in something is commendable, but protecting your freedoms by threatening the freedoms of others is anything but.  The short quiz found here will let you know whether your religious liberties are being threatened or if you are in fact the one threatening the freedoms of others. 

Stealing Valor

“Is it less dishonest to do what is wrong because it is not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy.” – Thomas Jefferson

The Stolen Valor Act of 2005, a bill that was proposed to amend Title 18 U.S.C. § 704, was signed into law on December 20, 2006.  The amendment extended the reach of the existing federal law, strengthened the penalties that were already in place, and included a number of specific new provisions.


Prior to the enactment of The Stolen Valor Act of 2005, the code listed a number of specific and prohibited actions and the maximum punishments associated with them.  Except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, it is illegal to intentionally wear, manufacture, or sell:

Any decoration or medal that as been authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces and could result in a fine, a maximum of six months of incarceration, or both.

Any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal and could result in a fine, a maximum of six months of incarceration, or both.

Any counterfeit imitation, except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law and could result in a fine, a maximum of six months of incarceration, or both.

The Congressional Medal of Honor and could result in a fine, a maximum of twelve months of incarceration, or both.  The act of trading, bartering, or exchanging the Congressional Medal of Honor for something of value is considered to be interchangeable with the act of selling the Congressional Medal of Honor.

The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 expanded the code to consider the trading, bartering, or exchanging of any decorations, medals, service medals, or badges for something of value to be illegal actions.  It also added two more specific acts to the list of offenses:

The act of mailing or shipping medals.

The act of falsely claiming to have been awarded military awards and using these false claims for personal gain.

Falsely claiming to have earned military awards does not always lead to tangible injuries, which what led the Supreme Court to overturn the law.  The First Amendment protects misleading statements that do not cause real harm or injury.

Jessica Levinson, an Associate Clinical Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, wrote an entry for The Huffington Post on the overturning of The Stolen Valor Act of 2005.  Levinson’s intention is to not only inform the public about the Act itself, but also explain why the Supreme Court deemed the Act unconstitutional.

After ruling on the trial, both Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagen indicated that Congress could introduce a new proposal that would focus on specific injuries caused by those that steal valor.  The entry was later updated to include information on the revised bill that was introduced by Congressman Joe Heck shortly after the overturning of the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.

H.R. 1775: Stolen Valor Act of 2012, a revised version of the amendment, was voted on under a procedure called “suspension of the rules,” which is usually reserved for uncontroversial bills, and subsequently voted to approve the bill. It was passed with a unanimous vote and will need to be voted on by the Senate before it can be signed into law.

Source: govtrack.us

The legality of claiming the aforementioned accolades for personal or professional gains should also be addressed.  By limiting the scope to monetary gains, the Act would allow those that presently claim to have earned these accolades to further their political careers, promote businesses, or in order to gain employment are completely within their rights.

While I do take issue with the limited reach of the proposed amendment, I do support its enactment and hope that the law it alters will be further elaborated on to include gains that may not hold direct monetary value.  The amendment, much like its overturned predecessor, will increase the public’s awareness of this growing epidemic.

I would also like to note that, despite what many seem to believe, it is illegal to wear any uniforms authorized by Congress for use by the Armed Forces when the intention is to impersonate an active duty or former service member.  Currently, a person appearing in uniform can only be prosecuted if there is visual evidence of the crime.

This amendment is not meant to target those with the audacity deceive others by wearing a military uniform or displaying awards on their body.  It is instead intended to prevent impersonators to make false claims for financial gain even if they do not actually posses those accolades.
In the future I hope that those that steal valor for advancement, whether tangible or not, are held accountable for their actions.  The following individuals represent the various imposters that technically operate within the law:

Bob King, the author of the fictional non-fiction book Spooky 8: The Final Mission, claims that he had reached the rank of Master Sergeant before being recruited into super-sleuth team of trained killers.  I have not read his book, so I do not know whether or not he claims to have been awarded any honors during his imaginary military career.  

However, I suspect that anyone capable of rising to the rank of Master Sergeant in three years would have earned at least one accolade. He has gained more than monetary gains from his false claims and I have no intention of adding to these gains by purchasing the book to find out. I also have no intention of purchasing Individual Response to an Active Shooter, an 18-page handbook to surviving in an emergency.  Like his previous book, he tries to pass his imaginary military career off as true in order to gain credibility.

Sean Beery, the former director and owner of the Volusia County Gun & Hunt Club, falsely claimed to have earned a Combat Jump Star and a Ranger Tab.  The claim appeared on his biography on the gun club’s website and was used to gain the trust of those he worked with as well as potential students.  He also intentionally made false claims in regard to his experience and service in the military, most likely in an attempt to further legitimize himself to those around him.

Skip Moschetti, the CEO of Advanced Tactical Investigations Inc., falsely claimed to be a “highly decorated veteran” that was awarded The Congressional Medal of Honor, The Distinguished Service Cross, three Silver Stars, eight Purple Hearts, and a number of other medals.  He made these claims in order to support his bizarre background story in order to appear credible to potential clients.  He stated that he was a former employee of the CIA that reported directly to the President on a daily basis, that he worked for and consulted the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Secret Service, and the U.S. Department of Justice, and that he was directly responsible for saving President George H. W. Bush’s life in an assassination attempt that took place in Kuwait City.

On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court heard the United States v. Alvarez and found the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 infringed on the right to free speech under the First Amendment.  The ruling implied that the general wording in regard to false claims was too vague and had the possibility of violating the right to free speech.

While I firmly believe that anyone willing to deceive and manipulate those around them, especially by falsely claiming to have served in the Armed Forces, should be held accountable for the results of their actions, I also believe that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was not specific enough to be considered constitutional.  However, I do not believe that the scope of the Stolen Valor Act of 2012 is wide enough due to the wording that indicates that those that falsely claim to have earned decorations, medals, or badges for monetary gain are committing illegal acts.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” – Adolf Hitler