Constitutional Rights -or- Lynch Mob Rules

It's been less than 24 hours since Dzhokar Tsarnaev was taken into custody in the Boston area. He was found injured and bloody, hiding in a land-bound boat in some back yard. He was hunted down, literally, by local and federal law enforcement agencies under suspicion of the Boston Marathon bombing. Those of us who are wired and socially connected have been barraged, nay, drowned with Headlines, 'Breaking News!' and page after page of social network outcry and memes, all declaring the judgement, sentencing, guilt and possible arraignment of the suspect.

What happened in Boston was an act of terrorism, no question. The various law enforcement agencies partnered with local citizens and businesses to gather and process tons of photo and video evidence so as to help lead them to suspects. The partnership and immediate outpouring of help was nothing less than heroic. Period.

But what happened to Constitutional Rights in all this?

Don't get me wrong. I am fairly confident the cops are on to the right guy, given his older brother and accomplice went out in a hail of gunfire. But let's not lose sight of due process.

We need to make sure we are honoring the rights and Amendments for which our forefathers died. We need to make sure that we duly process Dzhokar Tsarnaev to the fullest extent of law and in light of Constitutional rights. Nothing less. Which means we cannot so quickly dismiss our Sixth Amendment: The right to a fair and speedy trial of impartial peers.

I'm not defending Tsarnaev, or any other goomba who tries the same shenanigans. No way. I want to make sure he's tried fairly, and IF FOUND GUILTY by a jury of impartial peers, sent away for a long, long time. The problem is with our 24x7 "Breaking Headlines!" and always-connected social networks, all pre-judging his guilt, he has no hope for a fair or impartial jury. Which leaves some "wiggle room" in the eyes of the law to throw out vital evidence and data, and potentially lead to a hung jury...or worse, "innocence." Two words: Oh Jay.

We can't let that happen. Again.

I challenge you to clamor and shout for "Fair, Speedy Trial!" Let's find Tsarnaev guilty beyond the shadow of doubt and get this ugly action put behind us all so we can get on with healing.

Gay Marriage: Separation of Church & State or Denial from Divorce Court?

Gay rights are an incredibly polarizing topic in our culture. Right now, the Supreme Court of the United States are hearing arguments for and against passing law to allow (or deny) same-sex marriage. This is a monumentous time in our Country's history, for sure.

• Where do you stand on gay marriage and same-sex legal unions?

I'm asking whether it should be legal for two people of the same gender to be legally united in matrimony, just like their differing-sex counterparts, in the eyes of the US government...and the IRS. I'm not asking where your church or faith beliefs stand.

Today, all 50 States allow two same-sex people to date, maintain a romantic relationship and cohabit. They can hold hands in public, go out on dates, shop together, vote, pay taxes, co-borrow on a home, attend church (yes, they really attend church...sshhh) and even share a bedroom. Gasp! They get to do all of the same things that straight people do. What they cannot do in every state is take advantage of the same IRS tax code, share medical benefits, take a common sir name, make death-bed decisions or visit divorce court. Today, these are legal "privileges" for the straight and married.

The decision before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with faith, God, the Bible, or what you and I believe from a religious point of view. This is about life, liberties and the pursuit of happiness. This is the essence of our Constitution, through separation of church and state.

Contrary to popular opinion, there is no official Constitutional Amendment specifically guaranteeing any separation between church (faith, beliefs, houses of worship) and state (government, taxes, state and federal laws). The whole 'separation of church and state' reference was made by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association as to the importance of the First Amendment: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." 

I couldn't agree more.

If you don't agree with same-sex marriage or legal unions, then why not? What do you think the consequence will be? Some opponents to such laws believe there will be a "result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay". Similar and stronger statements have been issued by the Roman Catholic Church and Church of Latter Day Saints, among other mainstream faith organizations. My home church, the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection, welcomes any and all who come seeking His word, regardless of sexual orientation, despite the governing organizations (United Methodist Church) decision to not participate in gay marriage ceremonies. But that may change.

There seems to be a lot of deeply faithful people who think our government should protect their tenants of faith through government legislation. This ideology effectively mandates a certain belief system through law. I find such efforts disturbing and frightening. I don't know about you, but I don't want the government telling me what to believe, what faith to have, or how to worship. I don't want a state run church. No one does.

I've heard many people use the logic "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it." Which is all well and good...if you don't read very much of the Bible. Or, you pick and choose what parts of the Bible you choose to 'believe it' and 'settle it'. The Bible makes far more references to the acceptance of slavery, concubinage, demeaning women, killing children and many other detestable acts, over and above the condemnation of homosexuality. Furthermore, the homosexual acts referenced in the Bible (arguably only five such references exist) have nothing to do with two same-sex people who enter into a committed relationship, and more to do with the cultural norms of the Roman era and how men and boys were hazed and punished, and the sicknesses of immoral communities (which did and DO exist in Biblical times and our modern heterosexual world).

You have every right to believe gay men or lesbian women should not be married in your church. If your church doesn't support gay marriage then they don't have to marry gay people. No argument. It's diverse faiths and beliefs that make our country stronger and a great place to live. But let's not confuse faith practice with legislation of law abiding citizens.

For just a moment, let's take sexual orientation off the table. Let's hold the straight feet to the same fire.

If you think our government should pass laws to protect the "Biblical elements of marriage," then I have to assume you also want repealed any and all laws that recognize marriage outside of the Christian faith. You must certainly want to do away with legal unions based on NO faith, right?

What happens to Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu or Wiccan couples? What about atheists and agnostics? What happens to the marriages of myriad soldiers and sailors who have married their sweethearts at the J.O.P. before they ship off to war? All of those marriages are, and always have been, protected and recognized by all 50 States despite not being done in concordance with "Biblical values."

If two straight people, regardless of faith, can be legally married outside of Christian faith values, then this issue really boils down to legislating faith, or an attack on gays. Or both.

The issue confronting the Supreme Court is not about faith, God's will or the Bible. It's about fairness, equality and justice for all citizens. It's about the rights of ALL citizens. It's about being Of the People, By the People and For the People. Notice the word "straight" is not in the last sentence.

Can we really take faith principles out of the picture; WWJD? Faith principle and practice is matter of personal belief, of course. Here's what I believe: Jesus stated in Matthew 22:21: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" Jesus made clear His wish to keep faith sacred while still respecting the authority of secular law. As a Christian I try to balance my faith with my patriotism and desire to be a good citizen. I don't see the issue of gay marriage as an affront to my faith or beliefs in any way.

Fair is fair. If we aren't going to make allowances for same-sex marriage, then we should at least adjust all the other laws that benefit one sexual orientation over another. But I'm not hearing any of the Christian conservatives arguing that tax code should be rewritten for straight, married couples and child tax credits negated. I guess some of us have no problems using those extra gay taxes to pay for the schools that our hetero-created children are attending. Even though some of them will "come out" as gay some day when they grow up.

I tremble to think that our country, which was founded on the principals of equality for all citizens despite differences, is so widely divided on this seemingly minor hurdle. If you can't get your head around the equality of gay people being legally united in the eyes of all 50 United States, then maybe it would help you to think about guaranteeing equal access to divorce courts for everyone. :)

Separate But Equal: A Lesson in Consociationalism

"We must scrupulously guard the civil rights and civil liberties of all our citizens, whatever their background. We must remember that any oppression, any injustice, any hatred, is a wedge designed to attack our civilization."
~Franklin Delano Roosevelt, January, 1940

"They (who) seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers... call this a new order. It is not new and it is not order."
~Franklin Delano Roosevelt, March, 1941

In my lifetime I've seen our country slip away from long standing roots of being a Democratic nation. Our country has stood tall and proud as a Democratic nation for over 200 years. We stood united and existed as the United States. In the last 30 years that has all but unraveled. Though we still call ourselves the United States we hardly stand united.

A more accurate description of who we are is best described as a Separate-But-Equal nation. We've become a nation of Consociationalism where everyone is accommodated. Whereas our nation stood for what was best for the majority, we now are a nation of Least Common Denominator. Our policies and practices have boiled down to being non offensive, non abrasive and all accommodating to all demographics regardless of prevalence. If it offends any ONE then it offends us all.

To put this tongue-in-cheek...

Company Memo:
FROM: Patty Lewis, Human Resources Director
TO: All Employees
DATE: October 1, 2008
RE: Gala Christmas Party

I'm happy to inform you that the company Christmas Party will take place on December 23rd, starting at noon in the private function room at the Grill House. There will be a cash bar and plenty of drinks! We'll have a small band playing traditional carols... feel free to sing along. And don't be surprised if our CEO shows up dressed as Santa Claus! A Christmas tree will be lit at 1:00 PM. Exchanges of gifts among employees can be done at that time; however, no gift should be over $10.00 to make the giving of gifts easy for everyone's pockets. This gathering is only for employees!

Our CEO will make a special announcement at that time!

Merry Christmas to you and your family,
~Patty


***********************************************

Company Memo:
FROM: Patty Lewis, Human Resources Director
TO: All Employees
DATE: October 2, 2008
RE: Gala Holiday Party

In no way was yesterday's memo intended to exclude our Jewish employees. We recognize that Hanukkah is an important holiday, which often coincides with Christmas, though unfortunately not this year. However, from now on, we're calling it our "Holiday Party." The same policy applies to any other employees who are not Christians and to those still celebrating Reconciliation Day. There will be no Christmas tree and no Christmas carols will be sung. We will have other types of music for your enjoyment. Happy now?

Happy Holidays to you and your family,
~Patty

***********************************************

Company Memo:
FROM: Patty Lewis, Human Resources Director
TO: All Employees
DATE: October 3, 2008
RE: Holiday Party

Regarding the note I received from a member of Alcoholics Anonymous requesting a non-drinking table, you didn't sign your name. I'm happy to accommodate this request, but if I put a sign on a table that reads, "AA Only", you wouldn't be anonymous anymore. How am I supposed to handle this? Somebody?

And sorry, but forget about the gift exchange, no gifts are allowed since the union members feel that $10.00 is too much money and the executives believe $10.00 is a little chintzy.

REMEMBER: NO GIFTS EXCHANGE WILL BE ALLOWED.

***********************************************

Company Memo:
FROM: Patty Lewis, Human Resources Director
To: All Employees
DATE: October 4, 2008
RE: Generic Holiday Party

What a diverse group we are! I had no idea that December 20th begins the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which forbids eating and drinking during daylight hours. There goes the party! Seriously, we can appreciate how a luncheon at this time of year does not accommodate our Muslim employees' beliefs. Perhaps the Grill House can hold off on serving your meal until the end of the party or else package everything for you to take it home in little foil doggy baggy. Will that work?

Meanwhile, I've arranged for members of Weight Watchers to sit farthest from the dessert buffet, and pregnant women will get the table closest to the restrooms.

Gays are allowed to sit with each other. Lesbians do not have to sit with Gay men, each group will have their own table.

Yes, there will be flower arrangement for the Gay men's table.

To the person asking permission to cross dress, the Grill House asks that no cross-dressing be allowed, apparently because of concerns about confusion in the restrooms. Sorry.

We will have booster seats for short people.

Low-fat food will be available for those on a diet.

I am sorry to report that we cannot control the amount of salt used in the food . The Grill House suggests that people with high blood pressure taste a bite first.

There will be fresh "low sugar" fruits as dessert for diabetics, but the restaurant cannot supply "no sugar" desserts. Sorry!

Did I miss anything?!?!?

~Patty

***********************************************

Company Memo:
FROM: Patty Lewis, Human Resources Director
TO: All F*%^ing Employees
DATE: October 5, 2008
RE: The F*%^ing Holiday Party

I've had it with you vegetarian pricks!!! We're going to keep this party at the Grill House whether you like it or not, so you can sit quietly at the table furthest from the "grill of death," as you so quaintly put it, and you'll get your f*%^ing salad bar, including organic tomatoes. But you know, tomatoes have feelings, too. They scream when you slice them. I've heard them scream. I'm hearing them scream right NOW!

The rest of you f*%^ing wierdos can kiss my *ss. I hope you all have a rotten holiday!

Drive drunk and die,

~The B*tch from H*ll!!!

***********************************************

Company Memo:
FROM: Joan Bishop, Acting Human Resources Director
DATE: October 6, 2008
RE: Patty Lewis and Holiday Party

I'm sure I speak for all of us in wishing Patty Lewis a speedy recovery and I'll continue to forward your cards to her.

In the meantime, management has decided to cancel our Holiday Party and give everyone the afternoon of the 23rdoff with full pay.

Happy Holidays!

~Joan


I truly believe the only way our country will return to the greatness we once knew is to become United once again. Though we will never have all 300,000,000 citizens in unanimous agreement on any issue. What we can do is realize that while we are all unique (education, gender, sexual orientation, background, heritage, native language and faith, along with different views on foreign policy, finance and health care, military and government), we still share many commonalities and goals.

We all share the goal of wanting to do better for ourselves and our children. We all want to worship how and when we choose. We all wish to enjoy the freedoms and rights ensured by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We want to earn a good living and live in a nice home. We want peace. We want health. We want equality. We want respect. We want justice. Sometimes we want to be left alone and other times we want to be included and have a voice.

Diversity is a good thing. It helps us see the world in unique and relevant ways. We all matter and our opinions count but we must realize that everyone can't win everything all the time. We cannot keep accepting that no one will win if everyone can't win. That makes us all losers.

We need to accommodate as many as we can in every decision that we make; as a family, school, church, temple, community, county, state, nation and world. Rather than abandoning any benefit for anyone when everyone cannot benefit we should get back to making decisions that benefit the majority. Even if we all don't win, we all benefit from being one, United.