On LGBTQi? Rights and The World Right Now

For as many years as I can remember, I have wondered what all the fuss was about.

Why do I care about who is sleeping with who? Why do I care about who is in love with who? Why is it any of my business? Why is it any of my concern? Who died and left me to be judge and jury?

When I thought it was all about sex, I was in my 20’s and I thought, “People who are having sex or orgasms are happier people to be with”. Who could be against that?

When I understood that people had long-lasting relationships, I could no more imagine excluding the love of someone’s life from a get-together than I could imagine cutting off my right arm. What do people talk about? Sports, hobbies, fun things, and their family and loved ones. How can someone fully enjoy themselves with half of them missing? I knew someone years ago. After they came out to me, it was years later before I got to meet their long-term love. When I did, I felt horrible for them because of my thoughts above. I swore I would never exclude someone because of their orientation, unless someone was getting hurt or hurting others (in those “philosophical” arguments with the right wing that heterosexuals have, we used to worry about gay pedophiles as though they were the same thing. Now I know better. There are a lot more heterosexual pedophiles than anyone wants to know) In any case, it’s simpler now. I still hate pedophiles. I still welcome nice people to my house, regardless of orientation.

I have never been particularly pro-gay or anti-gay. I have been pro “people are who they are”. I generally have enough to worry about keeping track of my own family. I don’t have time to be worried about someone else’s. I always thought that the “Defense of Marriage Act” was the stupidest name for a piece of legislation. Why would someone else’s love or marriage offend mine? I only had to defend my marriage from me or my wife botching it up.

As I type this, I may very well offend some of my gay friends or my liberal friends for taking a non-positive. apologize for offending your sensibilities. Of course, I expect that my more conservative friends are offended by my not taking a more anti-gay stand. I’m sorry you don’t agree. To both of you, too bad. I don’t invite intolerant people to my house.

But now something is different. Laissez-faire is no longer going to work. In all the stupidity around immigrants that the Trump administration has managed, the latest thing is that we’re denying asylum to people fleeing gangs or LGBTQi people terrorized at home, as though gangs are somehow less deadly to asylum seekers or that LGBTQi are somehow more of a threat to America.

Leave it to a bunch of people who don’t believe in science to think that bullets only kill bad people or that gay people are a threat to national security. If DOMA was stupid, this is stupider… and way more deadly. This idea is therefore, stupid and evil. There is no logic here. There is no compassion, mercy, grace, or love — all things I treasure — in it.

So, here’s the thing: Remember that quote that said, “when they came for the Catholics, I wasn’t a Catholic so I didn’t care … until there was no one left to care about me?” Not happening here. Not now, not ever. I can see the writing on the wall. So, now if anyone asks me, I’m pro-gay. I’m also anti-gang and pro-victim.

If you’re gay, lesbian, transgender, queer, or intersex, you are always welcome at my house. If you’re seeking asylum, you are always welcome at my house. You always were, but it didn’t matter before. Now it does. I’m somewhere between the kids of Parkland at the Tonys the other night and Robert Deniro the other night in my opinion of this administration.

As a Christian, I cannot condone this blatant division of people in the human family. As an American, I hate what Trump and Jeff Sessions have done to the place.

Resisting with Peace,

John

Advertisements

Let’s Talk About Law, Justice, and Ethics

I have been fascinated by, and far more aware of, our legal system over the last four or five years. It amazes me how many different ways there are to see the same event legally, how many processes there are –or can be — in the administration of justice, and how different rules/laws are applied in different circumstances, by whom and to whom.  In all of this, I have fallen back on two basic ideas:

  1. Fair is fair.
  2. No one is above the law.

This week, as Donald Trump stated that he has the “absolute ability to pardon himself”, the law broke. I don’t know if legally the case can be made that he has that power, but if my assumptions are correct and he can pardon himself, there is no law, and there is no justice. In a democracy anyway, if all citizens are equal (fair is fair), then the law should apply to everyone  (no one is above the law) and it should be applied to all in the same way. If a man or woman steals a pair of shoes, and they are sentenced to X amount, as prescribed by law, then any man or woman — including someone in office, including someone with the highest office in the land.

I am well aware that this is a fantasy, and not the way justice is meted out, but it is an ideal that we should struggle toward. It is the goal, and the closer we get to it, the more fair and the more democratic we will be. The further away we get from it, the more we descend into chaos.

This means that, if fair is fair, and Donald Trump can say, “the law doesn’t apply to me and there are no consequences because I don’t want there to be”,  then the drug dealer on the corner should be able to say the same thing because he or she doesn’t want there to be. This is the same idea that says that if the policeman can beat someone without consequence, where do they get the right to blame citizens for doing the same?

Years ago, I came up the term “the Mike Brown standard”. I look forward to the day when we use it on a daily basis. The idea, regardless of whether you think Mike Brown was innocent or guilty, is that if he couldn’t get away with it, then you shouldn’t be able to either. If he was “suspicious”, then the corporate lawyer on Wall Street is, as well.

When we start viewing things through that lens, we will have criminal justice reform in a hurry. Every citizen in this country should have the same presumption of innocence that the Wall Street lawyer has. Until the Mike Browns of this world get that, we’re not a full democracy.  The fact that one man can have no consequences for criminal acts he may have committed which effected millions of people Mr. Trump, while another is dead for ripping off a store owner, (Mr. Brown may have stolen a cigar from a store — or committed other acts involving that store or the neighborhood).

In order for there to be “equal justice under the law”, we ought to consider the Mike Brown standard when we consider the President’s pardon power. Until then, it’s just not fair.

Resisting in Peace,

 

John