Gay Marriages Live On!

I was thrilled to hear that the California Supreme Court has decided not to stay its ruling to allow gays to legally marry in the state of California.  The implications of this for gay couples is enormous, since the ruling does not pertain to only gay couples living in California, but to any gay couples who get married in California.  For this reason, several other states have initiatives lined up for their November ballots to disallow those marriages from being legal in their states.

This is exactly what gay activists have been working toward for years.  By getting one state to allow gay marriage it opens the door for the issue to be finally pushed forward.  When a couple from another state come to California to get married, then return to their home state, they will file to be accepted as married, which will be rejected.  This violates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution, which trumps any state constitution.  Because of this, the issue will finally be forced to the highest court in our land.  This is the best possible situation for those of us who believe in gay marriage.

Not to toot my horn, which I would (almost) never do, but I did write about this subject five years ago.  For those who are interested, the book is still available and can be found at this link: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Almost-Paradise/Patt-Gavin/e/9780595287901/?itm=3  

Yes, I can admit it now.  I am ahead of my time.  

Now I'm working on my third book, this one on religions.  I'm hoping to finish it by the end of 2008 (I'd really like to have it completed before the summer is over).  I might put a few posts on here from that work over the next couple of weeks, so if religion is something that interests you, keep an eye out.

To anyone who reads this who disagrees with gay marriage, I'd be very interested in hearing from you.  Specifically, your reasons would be of great interest to me.

Gay Marriage

It was five years ago when I published my first novel, a fictional account of two men attempting to legalize their marriage in a story titled "Almost Paradise."  As an openly gay author, it's probably not going to come as any surprise to find out that I'm in favor of gay marriage.  What I find interesting is the number of homophobic people in our society who are against it.  I say these people are homophobic because I truly don't see any other possibility.

The issue of gay marriage is once again in the news, due to the California Supreme Court's recent ruling that overturned the state's ban against it.  Conservative groups are now coming out of the woodwork threatening to put an initiative on the November ballot to allow the voters to change the state's constitution making marriage strictly between one man and one woman.  The people who write such an initiative are, to my mind, homophobic.  I can't find any other term that adequately defines them.  They have an unrealistic hatred of homosexuals and are showing this in their actions.

I have yet to hear one compelling argument against same-sex marriage that would make me change my mind on this subject.  I've heard plenty of arguments, but they are easily seen as works of hatred, not logic.  Look, for example, at the website belonging to the National Organization for Marriage, one of the groups threatening the November initiative.  I searched their site for anything that would give a logical reason why they oppose same-sex marriage, but found very little.  They do have a pdf file called "Why Marriage Matters" and that lists "Seven Scientific Reasons" why marriage is important, but they fail to demonstrate that these reasons are truly scientific.  Note that these reasons are only for marriage, not against gay marriage.  Here are the seven reasons, along with my response:

1. Marriage reduces the risk of poverty for children and communities.  Wouldn't this also include gay marriages?  What evidence exists that this statement a) is true and b) only refers to heterosexual unions?

2. Fatherless households increase crime.  Again, what evidence supports this, and if it is accurate, then doesn't that say that two father households would be the best defense against crime?

3. Marriage protects children's physical and mental health.  Again, no support is given as to where this statement originated, but the American Psychological Association states that children of gay parents are at no disadvantage psychologically or socially compared to children of heterosexual parents.  The American Academy of Pediatrics says that children who grow up with gay parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as children with straight parents.  The National Association of Social Workers agrees that research on gay parenting shows a total absence of pathological findings in their children. Finally, Charles J. Patterson, researcher at the University of Virginia, stated that "Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”  (More on this can be found at http://www.openadopt.org/adoptive-parents/gay-and-lesbian/facts.php).

4. Both men and women who marry live longer, healthier and happier lives.  Again, no support, but where is the research on the life expectancy of married homosexuals?

5. Just living together is not the same as marriage.  All the more reason why gays need to be allowed to marry.

6. Parents who don't get or stay married put children's education at risk.  What studies prove this, and do those studies include children of same-sex couples?

7. When marriages fail, ties between parents and children typically weaken too.  I don't how they could even print this.  I know plenty of children of failed marriages who have great relationships with both of their parents.  To me, this statement is purely fictional.

For gay marriages, the flier states that "Marriage teaches that men and women need each other and that children need mothers and fathers."  Again, no justification is given for this statement, other than that the author (and it doesn't say who wrote it) says so.  It should say "Heterosexual marriage teaches that men and women need each other" and that would probably be a true statement, but to state that marriage teaches this is false.  Marriage is a union between two people, be they opposite sex or same sex, and in and of itself, it does not teach heterosexuality.  

The second statement, that "children need mothers and fathers" is also false.  See the response to number 3 above and you can see that no reputable organization supports this claim.  The American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics are both scientific organizations (unlike the National Organization for Marriage), and both these organization show this statement to be false.

The flier also claims that "every same-sex home ... intentionally deprives children of their own mom and dad."  Note that I did not add the emphasis, it's in the original.  This statement is so obviously untrue it amazes me that they would print it.  If I have a child with a woman, and my lover and I raise that child, how would that child be deprived of their mom and dad?  Just as children of divorce are raised primarily by one parent, so would mine be.  

If, as a gay parent, I chose to adopt a child, then they are deprived of their parents, but not by my doing. Their parents either gave them up for adoption, and therefore the deprivation comes from the biological parents, or died, in which case the deprivation comes from whatever caused their deaths.  The gay couple who adopt these children are providing them with loving homes, not depriving them of anything.

Okay, more lies in the flier.  "The law will teach your children and grandchildren that there is nothing special about mothers and fathers raising children together, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot."  Note again that the emphasis is in the original.  You can always tell when a writing (or speech) is relying more on fiction than on truth when it appeals largely to emotions.  This statement has no basis in fact, but relies heavily on making people believe that the law will call them bigots.  The law doesn't call anyone a bigot, that's a social construct, not a legal one.  The law also doesn't say that there is nothing special about mothers and fathers raising children together, it simply says that this is not the only way of raising children.  In fact, if this was so important to this organization, they should be trying to make divorce illegal rather than trying to stop gay marriages, since divorce is what stops men and women from raising children together.

"Marriage is about brining male and female together."  Again, that's a definition of heterosexual marriage, not marriage.

The National Organization for Marriage does not, in my opinion, give any good reason for putting an initiative on the ballot to outlaw same-sex marriage.  Based on their writings and on their website, I have to conclude that their actions are driven by nothing but homophobia.  

 

Leahy and Dodd -- UnAmerican

There's quite a bit of buzz on the news lately with various politicos calling for Hillary Clinton to quit the race for the presidency and allow Barack Obama to win the Democratic nomination.  Senators Patrick Leahy (Vermont) and Chris Dodd (Connecticut) have both been quite vocal in this regard.

According to Leahy, Clinton "has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to."  Dodd was even more vocal stating, "if a person wants to stay in the race, stay in the race, but if you have enough people rallying behind what appears to be the likely choice, and I believe the choice is Barack Obama, then I think you have to step up to the plate and say, 'Enough is enough!'  We want this to be over with."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/politics/03/28/clinton.dropout.calls/index.html

You have to admire politicians for their way of speaking.  Leahy never tells Hillary to quit the election, he simply states that she doesn't have a good reason to remain in the running.  Dodd starts off by stating that she has the right to stay in the race, but that she's not the "likely choice" in his opinion.  

Their careful consideration of the words to use are the main problem with their statements.  Clinton's reason for staying in the running is that America has the right to vote.  Where I live in California, we have already had our election, but where my mother lives in Pennsylvania they have not.  If my mother supports Hillary Clinton (and I believe she does because Mom's a smart cookie) she should have the right to vote for the candidate of HER choice, not Leahy's and not Dodd's.

Our election process is designed so that the candidate is elected by the people.  Not the senate.  The people.  Me.  My Mom.  People like us who read up on the candidates, formulate our opinions, pick the person we best feel represents our interests and go to the polls and vote.  When politicans like Leahy and Dodd, or pundits like Stephanie Miller call on a candidate to step down, they are showing themselves to be unpatriotic and unAmerican.  They would deny Americans the right to elect the person they best feel represents their interests.  They would deny Americans their freedom.

New Program For Homeowners

Due to the current debacle in the housing market, more homeowners have less than 50% equity in their homes than at any time since the government began tracking such things in 1945.  This means that if you bought a house for $200,000, you would own less than $100,000 worth of that house today, meaning if you were forced to sell it, you would take a loss.

The major reason for this loss is the current situation in the housing market.  A few years ago, lenders decided that they could make boatloads of money by selling houses to people who really couldn't afford them.  They did this by offering teaser loans, where the interest was very low for the first five years, then jacking the interest up to obscene levels five years later, knowing full well that the majority of these homeowners would not be able to afford the increased payments.

As an example, take a home that cost $200,000.  Since these people really can't afford to be homeowners, we'll assume that the loan they received was for the entire price of the house, without having anything for a down payment.  (Which would actually result in two loans, with two different interest rates, but to keep it simple, I'm ignoring that.)  At a rate of 3.5% the payments would be $898.09.  Let's assume that this amount is affordable to the homeowner, but just barely.  For the next five years they manage to make this payment each month, and all is well.

Now, five years later, their mortgage suddenly jumps to 7.0%, which means their monthly payment goes from $898.09 to $1,330.60.  They were barely hanging on at the lower rate, and now have to come up with hundreds more each month to make their payment.  Since their salary hasn't increased substantially in five years, where do they get the extra money?  For many of these homeowners, they're borrowing against their credit cards.

When the credit cards reach their limit, the homeowners often wind up in foreclosure, which means they lose the house.  Since the market has fallen, the house isn't worth what is owed on it, which means they have zero equity in the home.  Added to this, they still have to pay off their credit cards, which are at their limits.  These people are in debt for the rest of their lives.

Solution: for the housing market the solution is simple.  Take the original loan (in our example, the 3.0% interest rate) and convert it from an ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage) to a fixed rate, retroactive to the date when the interest rate increased.  Remove any late fees from the account, and re-adjust for any increases due to raising the rate.  In our example, return the loan to the original $898.09 per month and make it a fixed loan for the next 30 years.  What this will do is provide the homeowner with an affordable mortgage that they will be able to pay off over the course of 30 years, resulting in a profit for the lender, but not the profit they had hoped to receive.  Why this is a good idea is because failure to do this will result in the homeowner going into foreclosure, and the lender will lose money since the house is no longer worth the amount of money they loaned on it.  It's a good idea because it keeps the houses in the hands of the homeowners, not on the already too full housing market, and allows the homeowners to continue building credit and equity.  Everyone wins and no one gets taken to the cleaners.

Next solution: for the credit cards, the banks can make out very well here.  Reduce the interest rate significantly, say to 4% or 5%, with the stipulation that this rate is effective only if the payment is 5% or more above the minimum.  What this does is several things; it allows the card holder to pay off their debt without paying 20% in interest (which is just profit for the bank).  It discourages them from walking away from their debt, or declaring bankruptcy, and by structuring it so that they must pay slightly more than the minimum due, it allows them to reduce their debt faster, both with decreased interest rates and increased payment amounts.  What it does for the bank is allow them to project their profit margin over time, albeit at a lower rate than they would like.  It increases the minimum amount they will receive in payments each month, which increases their cash flow.  It also means fewer card holders walking away from their debts, as they now have the means to pay them.  This will result in lower debts for the bank, increasing their net worth (and their stock price).  Again, a win-win situation without anyone being unduly hurt.

So, who is offering these solutions?  Absolutely no one.  Corporate America is concerned with profits, and if those profits aren't huge, no one is interested.  Your government could enact legislation to assist Americans in financial need, but since the banks and lending institutions fund candidates, your elected officials aren't going to turn their backs on the companies that pay them to help their constituents.  It seems to me that if the government spent a portion of the money being wasted in Iraq to start their own lending institution, all of these homeowners could be spared the pain and embarrassment of foreclosure, and the interest they pay would benefit the government instead of major corporations.

Just an idea.

Hillary Wins!

The fascinating thing about Hillary Clinton winning the New Hampshire primary is that every poll taken right up until the day of the election had her losing to Barack Obama by a hefty margin.  Obviously, the polls are not always correct.  In fact, it's good to see that Hillary was able to beat Barack because it sends a message to voters to not pay too much attention to polls.  In the end, the only thing that matters are the votes.

One thing that needs to be considered going forward is what caused Hillary to pull ahead in New Hampshire.  Most of the pundits feel that her breakdown in the week before the election helped people to see her in a more personal light, and thus change their votes.  This is possible, but there is another possibility.  In New Hampshire forty percent of the voters are Independent and are allowed to vote either Democratic or Republican in the primary, as they choose.  In this election, the choice for Democrat was two to one over Republican.  Of those who chose to vote Democrat, were they voting for Hillary because they want her as their next president, or were they voting for Hillary because they think that she can't win and they really want a Republican in the White House?  Something to think about.

On to more important matters; my cats.  I have two cats that I adopted last June when they were three weeks old and their mother abandoned them.  They are a brother and sister and I named them Endora and Arthur.  They are now just over seven months old, so they are fully out of the cute kitten stage and into the cat stage, and as they continue to grow I understand more and more each day why their mother abandoned them.

From the time they were little they have both worn collars with bells on them, as I feel that the hummingbirds have a right to know when the cats are around.  Within the last week Arthur started removing his collar on a daily basis.  I responded by purchasing harnesses for the two of them, which they cannot remove.  I attached their bells to these, and Arthur somehow figured out how to get the bell off.

I finally took out my sewing kit and decided to attach the bell to the back of the harness with thread so he wouldn't be able to remove it.  While doing this, I noticed that I had a few other bells in the sewing kit, so I attached those as well.  Unfortunately for Arthur, these were jingle bells left over from a Christmas project.  Now when he runs across the room, it sounds like Santa's sleigh is getting ready for take-off.  

This is Timely. I Wish I Had Written It.

"We, free citizens of the Great Republic, feel an honest pride in her greatness, her strength, her just and gentle government, her wide liberties, her honored name, her stainless history, her unsmirched flag, her hands clean from oppression of the weak and from malicious conquest, her hospitable door that stands open to the hunted and the persecuted of all nations; we are proud of the judicious respect in which she is held by the monarchies which hem her in on every side, and proudest of all of that lofty patriotism which we inherited from our fathers, which we have kept pure, and which won our liberties in the beginning and has preserved them unto this day. While that patriotism endures the Republic is safe, her greatness is secure, and against them the powers of the earth cannot prevail.

I pray you to pause and consider. Against our traditions we are now entering upon an unjust and trivial war, a war against a helpless people, and for a base object -- robbery. At first our citizens spoke out against this thing, by an impulse natural to their training. To-day they have turned, and their voice is the other way. What caused the change? Merely a politician's trick -- a high-sounding phrase, a blood-stirring phrase which turned their uncritical heads: Our Country, right or wrong! An empty phrase, a silly phrase. It was shouted by every newspaper, it was thundered from the pulpit, the Superintendent of Public Instruction placarded it in every school-house in the land, the War Department inscribed it upon the flag. And every man who failed to shout it or who was silent, was proclaimed a traitor -- none but those others were patriots. To be a patriot, one had to say, and keep on saying, 'Our Country, right or wrong,' and urge on the little war. Have you not perceived that that phrase is an insult to the nation?

For in a republic, who is 'the country'? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Who, then, is 'the country'? Is it the newspaper? is it the pulpit? is it the school-superintendent? Why, these are mere parts of the country, not the whole of it; they have not command, they have only their little share in the command. They are but one in the thousand; it is in the thousand that command is lodged; they must determine what is right and what is wrong; they must decide who is a patriot and who isn't.

Who are the thousand -- that is to say, who are 'the country'? In a monarcy, the king and his family are the country; in a republic it is the common voice of the people. Each of you, for himself, by himself and on his own responsibility, must speak. And it is a solemn and weighty responsibility, and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of pulpit, press, government, or the empty catch-phrases of politicians. Each must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, and which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide it against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let man label you as they may. If you alone of all the nation shall decide one way, and that way be the right way according to your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country -- hold up your head! you have nothings to be ashamed of.

Only when a republic's life is in danger should a man uphold his government when it is in the wrong. There is no other time.

This republic's life is not in peril. The nation has sold its honor for a phrase. It has swung itself loose from its safe anchorage and is drifting, its helm is in pirate hands. The stupid phrase needed help, and it got another one: 'Even if the war be wrong we are in it and must fight it out: we cannot retire from it without dishonor.' Why, not even a burglar could have said it better. We cannot withdraw from this sordid raid because to grant peace to those little people upon their terms -- independence -- would dishonor us. You have flung away Adam's phrase -- you should take it up and examine it again. He said, 'An inglorious peace is better than a dishonorable war.'

You have planted a seed and it will grow."

Mark Twain
Unknown when it was written, but probably around 1901

The Presidential Election Season

Once again it is time for a presidential election, and even at this early stage in the game the smell of bull manure is already wafting on the breeze out of Washington. But enough about the Republicans.

One of the most exciting parts of the presidential election is the great variability in candidates, and this early on it's not surprising at all to have one's allegiance shift from one candidate to another. This is sometimes done by a supported candidate saying or doing something that makes them no longer worthy. It also happens when a new candidate enters the ring.

Previously, I had supported Hillary Clinton as my favorite candidate. I think our country is long overdue for a female president, and I admired Hillary for her intelligence and willingness to fight for her causes. Unfortunately, that's simply not enough. I recently attempted to get involved in Hillary's campaign here in Los Angeles and found that, quite simply, they weren't interested. The impression I get from her people is that if there aren't supporters who can contribute significantly to her campaign, she's simply not going to waste her time. This tells me that she is out of touch with the people, and probably isn't going to waste her time on us as president either.

Even worse, her campaign has been sending me letters through the mail addressed to "Ms. Patt Gavin." Nothing sets me off quicker than to see my name neutered. I'm sure she wouldn't appreciate being called "Mr. Hillary Clinton" and by the same token, I don't appreciate being called "Ms." Sorry, Ms. Clinton, but you lost my vote.

So, who do I throw my support behind? There is only one candidate who fully supports gay marriage, and that's certainly an incentive to me. He also supports a fair tax, which I am highly in favor of. In fact, I have been for several years now, but no major candidates ever seemed willing to even mention it. A Fair Tax is just that; a tax that is fair to all. Our current tax system puts an unfair burden on the middle class while allowing both the upper class and lower class to pay far less as a percentage of earnings. A Fair Tax eliminates income tax and shifts the tax burden to purchases. More information can be found on it at the Fair Tax website at http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer.

I am completely against the war in Iraq and feel we need to create a timetable for leaving that country. I don't believe it's feasible to simply leave, but I do think we need an exit strategy. Our current administration has been unwilling to provide that. I also feel that starting a war in Iran would be a stupid move.

Global warming is not just a catch phrase, it is a reality and must be addressed while there is still time. We need a candidate who is willing to listen to scientists and work to improve our planet. To that end, I believe that stem cell research is something that we need to explore deeper, not ignore. Stem cell research could help many people live richer, more productive lives, and it at least needs to be properly researched and tested. Who knows what might develop, but if we don't at least try we'll never know.

I think marijuana should be legalized. I personally don't use drugs, but that's my choice and I feel others have a right to make their own choices. It should be legalized and legislated just like alcohol. Driving under the influence is a crime, but being under the influence is not. So long as correct behavior is maintained, adults should have the right to enjoy themselves however they choose.

And who supports all of these issues as I do? Senator Mike Gravel. Gravel not only thinks like I do on all of these issues, he has even added another one, that I personally think is quite brilliant; a national ballot initiative. States west of the Mississippi have long had ballot initiatives. States in the east have not, at least not when I was living in the east. What this means is that in the east you elect officials who create the laws. In the west you do the same thing, but if those officials don't create the laws you want, you get an initiative on the ballot and let the people vote for it. If it passes, it becomes law, in spite of what the elected officials think. Senator Gravel wants to see this on a national level, so we the people will make the laws, rather than waiting for elected officials to do the same. Brilliant!

Senator Gravel's website is http://www.gravel2008.us/ and I encourage everyone to check it out and see what they think. I'd be interested in hearing what others feel about this man.