|
| VIEW TRAILER | ABOUT THE FILM | FESTIVAL SCREENINGS | PRESS | MEDIA | RELATED NEWS | CONTACT US | BACK ISSUES |
|
New Jersey is poised to pass a law that would force Governor CHRIS CHRISTIE to veto the right for same-sex marriage in the garden state. CHRISTIE, playing from the ARNOLD SCHWARZENNEGAR playbook-talk like a reasonable sane person while forcing a referendum on the issue in hopes of not getting muddied-is still not in favor of gay marriage. But, he recently appointed an openly gay judge to the New Jersey Supreme Court, and his legislature is going to pass the measure. After the experience of Proposition 8, it is now openly discussed in that state that civil rights cannot be put up for a popular vote. Somehow, that reality never made it into the public discourse in California. And after ARNOLD twice vetoed similar measuresin California, the hyupocrite came out against Proposition 8, which passed and stripped the right for GLBT Californians to marry. That whole mashup is on it's way to the Supremes. Dcoes CHRISTIE really want to retread that old ground? But now, on the other coast, the state of Washington is ready to breach the subject as well. The state senate passed legislation that will legalize same-sex marriage. The proposed law goes to the house in Washington where it is expected to pass. And, get this, Governor CHRIS GREGOIRE is on record saying she will pass it. That would make 7 states, including Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticutt, Iowa, New Hampshire and New York, to go along with the District of Columbia, where civilization has evolved. In the words of someone not long ago, they(the Republicans) hate us for our freedom. But freedom will find a way!
|
|
New regulations, published as final in the Federal Register next week, will go into effect in 30 days |
|
White House Office of Public Engagement to Hold LGBT Conferences Around the Country |
|
America has always prided itself as being a country with a fair, and advanced legal system, a place where the rule of law evokes a certain amount of comfort and relief. I went to law school because of that notion, that with the law on your side, you had right and good, and could not lose. Years of direct confrontation with the limits of those ideals sobered me to the concepts of fairness, and even goodness when it comes to jurisprudence, but there always was the bottom line defense of the American judicial system, no matter it's faults, it's the best in the world. That is probably still the case, but recent events erode on that beacon. The court, particularly the Supreme Court, is losing the battle for sanity, leaving in its stead, chaos and uncertainty. The erosion is subtle; it's happening right before our eyes, but little is being done to stop it. It's as if no one cares, or worse, that there is little we can do, and so we just shake our heads, almost laugh at the rediculousness of it. Yet there it is, in the midst of our daily lives, and growing, like a cancer. It started with the bald power grab in 2000, when in BUSH V GORE, the Supremes stepped into a contested vote count in Florida, and handed the presidency over to the republicans. It was partisan; it was unprecedented; and it was final. Done deal. Game over. And we just took it. A decade has passed, and the effects of the rule of law in establishing the rule of Bush are disastrous. The country is still digging out of a two-term frat boy who was handed the keys to the family luxury sedan and ran it into a ditch. We may never get the weeds out of the back seat, and the transmission seems permanently damaged.
That influence was deftly wielded in 2010 in the Citizens United case. That gem of wisdom now allows billionaire donors like SHELDON ADELSON to give $5 million to the benefit of campaigns like NEWT GINGRICH. ADELSON is a multi-national businessman who runs casinos. Just for good measure, he agrees with the notion espoused by NEWT that the Palestinians are an "invented people." Now that seems good for democarcy, right? But our conservative, if not extremist Supreme Court wanted it that way. Just how conservative, and extreme is this "BUSH" Court? Well, just this week they ruled that credit repair companies, you know those crooks who take your money, usually a percentage up front, to negotiate with your creditors, usually big banks that are the impetus for so much unrest and foment in our economy, anyway, those repair companies can now take your money, and require you to waive your right to sue them in court, opting out for arbitration, usually in some fine print that you never even saw, much less agreed to. Wow, that's a mouthful! The bottom line, the Supremes have sided with credit repair companies, and by way of relation, with big banks, in ruling that arbitration provisions, buried deep in some 100-page contract are enforceable to deprive a wronged customer from suing in court. It is the latest in a string of rulings bolstering the binding nature of arbitration proceedings in contracts, a curious result for a court which surely must know the vagaries of such processes. How can an arbitrator, or even a panel of arbitrators possibly mete out justice like the American court system? Why would judges deprive the right of an aggrieved customer to sue, in lieu of a system no doubt influenced by the forces of money, and greed, and power. It's the banks we're talking about, after all!
It is against this backdrop that the Supremes considered the issue of censorship on television this week. Talk about the Taliban. The rules in this country on decency and obscenity over the airwaves are rather arcane. They stem from a ruling in 1978, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, in which the then Supreme Court laid out 7 words that could not be said over the airwaves. A major part of the court's ruling relied on the effects such language would have on children. Really? Language? Words? However appropriate that may have been in 1978, it certainly doesn't hold the same weight today, with hardcore sexual activity a click away for most youngsters, gun battles to the vivid and realistic bloodyndeath on game consoles, and the reality of life up close and presonal all around. What harm will come if a 7-year old hears the word "shit"?
It should be noted that ROBERTS is the only justice with small children. It should also be noted that judges, much less Supreme Court Chief Justices, are to show at least the impression of impartiality. Really JOHN? Justice ANTONIN SCALIA, himself a member of the Taliban, didn't limit the necessity of shielding ones ears and eyes to such vile to children, "This has a symbolic value. Just as we require a certain modicum of dress for the people that attend this court. These are public airwaves. I'm not sure it even has to relate to juveniles, to tell you the truth." What! Is SCALIA saying even adults shouldn't hear the word shit, or fuck? Or see nudity? What about beards ANTONIN, can we shave our beards and go in public? Should women wear veiles? The man is insane! And he is making decisions, along wioth the olther conservative loons that run our lives, for years to come. This court could make rulings that effect many of us for the rest of our lives. Period.
The relevance of all this in an election year must not be lost. The power to appoint replacements to the Supreme Court is immense. That power must not fall into the hands of the likes of NEWT GINGRICH, or MITT ROMENY, the Mormon. OBAMA must be re-elected, and if we are lucky, HILLARY CLINTON for 8 years after that. The fact is, the Supreme Court in this country over the last decade has been uneasily "active" in influencing day to day life in this country, not unlike the Taliban of Southwest Asia. And the scary thing, a number of those sitting on the court have views no less extreme. We don't need any more like them.
|
| Join the Revolution |
 back to reelgay.com |
| © 2010 Manmade Multimedia, Inc. All rights reserved. |
In the process, W went about filling the Supreme Court with whatever right hand he had at the time. HARRIET MIERS was nominated and then withdrawn. His former legal counsel, and Attorney General, ALBERTO GONZALES was up for the job, but for his perjury and other high crimes and misdemeanors in office, which saw him exit in disgrace. Eventually, the cronyism approach to filling the Supreme Court with ultra right wing conservatives resulted in President GEORGE W. BUSH appointing JOHN ROBERTS, as Chief Justice, and SAMUEL ALITO, an associate justice. Both men are relatively young, ensuring their conservative influence over the court for years to come.
"This Supreme Court is just steam-rolling over the American justice system and throwing consumers to the wolves," DOUG HELLER, , Executive Director of Consumer Watchdog recently told the LA Times. Credit card agreements all have the arbitraion clause language buried in their lengthly, illegible contracts. And, if you've ever fought with your credit card company, you know how fruitless going to arbitration is. They win 99% of the time. Worse yet, arbitration clauses prohibit class action lawsuits, and for consumers taking on giants like banks and credit companies, or even credit repair comanies, to take class action lawsuits off the table is a huge victory for the powers that be. The rule of law is no more.
But there they were, our mullah justices, debating the effects of profanity on the tender ears of our children. "All we are asking for--" Chief Justice JOHN ROBERTS said, in a blatant faux paus, "What the government is asking for is a few channels where you can say they are not going to hearn the S-word, the F-word. They are not going to see nudity."
Justices RUTH BADER GINSBURG and ELENA KAGAN seemed to breath some sanity ninto the hearing. But make no mistake, they are in the minority on this court, and will be for some time. SCALIA is getting old, but ALITO and ROBERTS, both cut from the same tribal cloth, are youngsters. Their twisted, Amish views will haunt us for some time.