|
Yes on Same Sex Marriages
By John M. Williams
Like President Barack Obama, my support for same sex marriages has been evolutionary. I support same sex marriages. My evolution started 33 years ago when I met Peter and Jimmy. They were committed lovers. Thirty three years later, their bind is as strong as ever. I worked with Peter for three months before he told me, “I am gay.” I was stunned.
Peter did not fit the image of gay men I had in my mind. He is the toughest advocate for people with disabilities that I know and I have ever worked with. He never made a play for other men that I saw. However, he was not afraid to tell people he was gay. This was testament to his courage.
The same night I learned that Peter was gay; he introduced my wife Lisa and me to Jimmy. Immediately I saw a strong bond of affection between the two men. Then and now, I never felt threatened by their relationship. I never felt their relationship was immoral, illegal, unnatural and sinful. I believe had they adopted children, they would have been .terrific parents.
When I was a child, for years my parents allowed a lesbian woman and her friend to babysit my brothers, sisters and me. My parents never questioned Nancy’s commitment to watch us dutifully. Nancy always brought her friend with her. To my knowledge, my parents never minded. Neither did we. Nancy was a lot of fun. She was a daughter of one of my mother’s best friends. In 1988 or 1989, when visiting my mother, Nancy came to my mother’s house with her partner of 38 years.
Nancy, her partner, my mother and I reminisced about their babysitting era. Nancy said she had watched us for about 10 years. During the reminiscing, I thought of Peter and Jimmy, and now Nancy and her life-long partner. They were happy being together. Nancy mentioned that she wished she could legally marry her lover. Her lover expressed the same sentiment.
In 45 years, I have known and worked with gays and lesbians. They are writers, doctors, clergy, soldiers, politicians, scientists, doctors, nurses, teachers, researchers, and so on. Every one is a patriot, and more than 90% are dedicated to their partners. Loving partners of the same sex does not make them sick, immoral, evil.
Religious and political conservatives are fuming because President Barack Obama supports same sex marriages. Cultural wars opposing same sex marriage are exploding across the country. A fired up clergy are delivering hell fire and damnation homilies opposing same sex marriages. They are saying same sex marriages are sinful immoral and against God’s law. They are erroneously shouting that a traditional marriage is between one man and one woman. They are condemning gays and lesbians to hell.
In all the shouting from clergy and cultural political conservatives oppose same sex marriage; they forget they are condemning God’s children to hell. They are saying that God made a mistake by making 10% of the population gay. If this is the case, then God should be damned. Before throwing stones at the gay and lesbian communities we need to know “Why did God make 10% of the population gay? “
Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate love to let business screw consumers. These businesses include men and women. Yet Republicans oppose people of the same sex screwing. Who is doing more harm and committing a greater sin?
Oops! I’m sorry. Republicans don’t sin. They moralize.
I support same sex marriages because they are right and they should be legal nationwide.
To comment write to jwilliams@atechnews.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------
Show Me the Threat
By John M. Williams
In recent years more than 20 states have passed Stand Your Ground laws. For the layman, like me, Stand Your Ground laws allow individuals who feel seriously threatened with great bodily harm or death to fight back with deadly force. The law and others like it expand the so-called Castle Doctrine. US Legal.com defines the Castle Doctrine as follows: "In criminal law, (it's) an exception to the retreat rule. The retreat rule allows a person the use of deadly force while protecting his/her place of abode, its premises and its inhabitants from attack such as from a trespasser who intends to commit a felony or inflict serious bodily injury or harm."
To date, the most celebrated Stand Your Ground case has been George Zimmerman’s killing teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford Florida. Forty five days after the killing, Zimmerman has been charged with second degree murder. In killing Martin, Zimmerman argues he was protecting his life. He was also acting as a vigilante judge, jury and executioner. His decision to confront Martin for walking through a development where his father lived was a serious error in judgment. His decision to pull a loaded gun on Martin was another poor decision. The police’s decision not to arrest Zimmerman after he killed Martin was another bad decision.
I have many unanswered questions regarding Florida SYG law. Why was the Florida SYG law passed? What statewide threat was the impetus behind passing the law? Were killings with guns on the rise? If so, what policies existed that gave criminals easy access to killing weapons? Why should it be easy for criminals to get guns? Where there enough police on the streets to protect the citizens?
In states other than Florida, what serious threat existed statewide to persuade the legislatures to pass SYG laws? Were bad guys killing more people? Were more robberies being committed with handguns? Were there fewer police to protect the citizens? If there were fewer police why?
We know the National Rifle Association supported passing the SYG law. An NRA endorsement should raise immediate warning flags about the soundness of the law. The NRA wants every citizen armed and ready to use their guns at a moment’s notice.
Another strong supporter of SYG laws is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an ideologically conservative lobbying group consisting of business interests and conservative state legislators for the purpose of drafting research, policy papers and model legislation to assist and influence state legislatures and promote conservative initiatives. According to the organization's website, members share a common belief that "government closest to the people" is "fundamentally more effective, more just, and a better guarantor of freedom than the distant, bloated federal government in Washington, D.C. ALEC is perhaps most well-known for drafting model legislation that can be easily adopted by state legislators and introduced as legislation. ALEC also serves as a networking tool among state legislators, allowing them to research the handling and "best practices" of policy in other states.[
Since SYG became law in Florida the number of killings has tripled. Across the nation, citizens using the SYG law have killed robbers robbing a neighbor’s house, killed a neighbor over a dispute, etc. As long as these SYG laws remain on the books, more people will be killed, more people will become disabled, and the respect for law enforcers will dwindle as people believe they have the right to kill one another over disputes. What relevance will police in their communities if they are brought in after a killing? How can we call ourselves civilized when guns are one of the methods required to settle differences?
What’s to stop police from using the same SYG laws to justify killings?
I have had disputes with neighbors and friends. Some were vitriolic. While I have fired rifles and pistols, I have never felt the need to end the dispute with a gun. I do not own guns. I do not feel threatened because I do not own a gun. I have never felt the need to emulate Wild Bill Hickok, Wyatt Earp, John Wesley Hardin or Billy the Kid.
I don’t oppose people owning rifles or shotguns for hunting. I oppose the ease that people can buy guns at gun shows without a background check. I oppose SYG laws.
It’s time for the country .to establish rational adult policies on gun control. The SYG laws are disastrous policy and stupid.
Show me the threat again.
I’m waiting.
To comment write to jwilliams@atechnews.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop Erecting Voting Restrictions
By John M. Williams
May 20, 1966 remains a special day in my life. In one day, I was 21. This meant that I could drink in a bar in Pennsylvania, and I could vote.
Since I turned 21, where ever I have lived, I have voted in nearly every local election. I am extremely proud to say that I have voted in every statewide and every presidential election everyplace I have lived.
I cherish voting as dearly as I want to live, as much as I love my wife and three children. I would defend my right to vote with my life.
I am 66 years old. God willing I shall vote in November 2012 for Barack Obama. I pray that I may vote in many, many elections beyond this November. When I vote in Virginia, I have to show my driver’s license. I still drive so I can do that. In two, three or four years from now, I may not be driving. If I am not driving, and my driver’s license expires, and my passport expires, what other government issued documents do I have with a photo ID. I doubt if I will have any. Does this mean I will not be able to vote when I am in my seventies or older? In some states, the answer is yes?
Will people with disabilities be denied the right to vote because they do not have a driver’s license, passport or other photo ID?
Does a picture tell people who I really am? No. I have seen many fake IDs. In my college years, you could buy phony driver’s licenses that were used to get into bars or adult entertainment places. It was rare to see anyone with a false identification ejected
Today some states are rejecting college student identification but accept gun permits as proof of identification. Owning guns apparently trumps education. A gun proves who you are. A student ID doesn’t. Firepower trumps brain power.
I want to vote as long as I can. Voting is my free speech exercise. It is my way of telling my community and my country what I want from my government. To deny me this exercise of free speech is to deny me my citizenship. Such denial is un-American and criminal. It is a throwback to nearly a century of the Jim Crow voting atrocities.
Voting restrictions are racist, anti-elderly, anti-student, anti-disabled, anti-veteran and anti-American. Military veterans tell me they are appalled at any restrictions and wonder if any of the people pushing these restriction ever served in the military. Unfortunately, there is a segment of our population that is committed to restricting voting access for political purposes. The Republicans are pushing voting restrictions on minorities, students and seniors because they know they vote Democratic. These shenanigans must stop. They can be stopped by overwhelming voting the Republicans out of office. If Americans care about voting, they will overwhelmingly vote to repeal them.
To comment send an e-mail to jwilliams@atechnews.com.
| 
