Just another WordPress weblog

Stay tuned…. getsomejosh soon to be RethinkBeing.com

December 5, 2009 I arrived at Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation about twenty minutes before the Erev Shabbat worship was to start. I was greeted as I entered and given a prayer book called a siddur. People began arriving more steadily but many stayed in the large foyer chatting with friends and family. As congregates shuffled in, I noticed that they were predominately older and almost completely Caucasian. Everyone was well dressed and appeared to be at the very least comfortably in the middle class. I estimated the total attendance at seventy-five people just before the service began. This evening worship, set to begin at 6:00 PM, represents a typical Friday night service at the Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation. There is also a Saturday morning worship that Rabbi Milkew explained is less popular than the Friday worship. The sprawling complex also houses an elementary school and offices for the many staff and clergy that it must take to run the Congregation. The IHC is located around 64th and Meridian Street on Indianapolis’ North side. This part of town appears to be somewhat affluent, but there are also nearby neighborhoods that represent homeowners in a much lower income level. A few minutes before the worship was to begin, I started to hear music that slowly got louder and louder. One female Rabbi and one female Cantor stood at two separate podiums, one on each side of the altar at the end of the room. Rabbi Milkew would later explain to me that a Cantor is a member of the clergy that is responsible for and classically trained in music. The sanctuary at the Indianapolis Hebrew College is a beautiful, tall, and cavernous space filled with earthy red and brown tones. On the left side of the main wall, three words on plaques were hung high on the wall. Rabbi Milkew explained that all three plaques represented the same word: “kadosh” meaning “holy”. On the right side of the main wall an ornate metal symbol was hanging on the wall. A three-person choir sat high up overlooking the stage and altar. On center stage was a huge column with doors that slid open, which completely dominated the altar. Inside were 3 hand-written Torahs, one dating back to before World War II. The service started with the Cantor walking up and down the main aisle singing while also demurely waving at people she knew in the congregation. After a few minutes, she made her way back up to her podium and Rabbi Milkew began the service by welcoming everyone and announcing that there would be two family events celebrated at this Erev Shabbat Worship. A young couple was officially naming their daughter, and a young man was being called to the Torah as a Bar Mitzvah. The Rabbi then began reading as the congregants followed along in their siddur. At times we were directed to read aloud with the Rabbi and at other times the Cantor sang the hymns alone. Her voice was incredible and her singing was probably the highlight of the visit for me. After about 20 minutes, the singing and reading was paused so that the family celebrating the Bar Mitzvah could come on stage and lead a prayer. The Bar Mitzvah recited a prayer and soon we were back to reading from the siddur while sometimes standing and sometimes sitting. After approximately 20 more minutes of reading and listening to the Rabbi read, the second family event was ushered onto the stage. A young couple with a very new baby was joined onstage by both sets of grand-parents. Rabbi Milkew later explained that it is their tradition to name female babies during the Friday night worship. The grand-parents and parents read aloud a prayer and then announced the girl’s name: Wrigley Sarafina Rubenstein. After the extended family left the stage, the Rabbi then explained to the congregation that it is customary to say a prayer for those struggling with illness on Friday nights. I learned from Rabbi Milkew later that “healers are revered” by the Jewish people. The “mi shebeirach”, a prayer of good health, was recited to help heal any Temple member who was sick or hospitalized. Although there was no actual sermon, what came next was a bit of a surprise to me. Rabbi Milkew told the congregation about a political news story regarding female reform Jews in Israel being arrested for reading the torah in public at the Wailing Wall. The Rabbi expressed genuine frustration about the oppression of Reform Jews by Orthodox Jews in Israel. She continued by clarifying that the Orthodox Jews were of course “brothers”, but that their oppression should stop. Rabbi Milkew then read the names of Temple members that were grieving the loss of a family member. She asked that we all support those who are dealing with the incredible sense of loss felt by the family of the recently deceased. The service ended with another round of reading and following along in the siddur as the Rabbi and the Cantor walked down the main aisle and exited to one side. Overall, my experience at the Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation was a positive one. I got the sense that Judaism puts an incredible emphasis on community and takes a great deal of pride in their history. Many references were made to Jewish ancestors and the history that the Jews have endured. Rabbi Milkew explained to me that her Temple focuses more on “teaching, not sermonizing”. To my surprise, she followed up by stating “the Bible cannot be taken literally”. This progressive view of Judaism, and religion in general, was refreshing and comforting. I suppose the fact that I was talking to a female Rabbi is a clear indicator of why Rabbi Milkew feels so passionately about this progressive ideology. I could tell that the sense of community and connection with a higher purpose that congregates at the Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation felt was powerful. Additionally, the practice of holding life-cycle events during normal worship services serves an important purpose. I realized that similar to marriage, family events like naming a baby or becoming a Bar Mitzvah are an attempt to strengthen desirable attributes by affirming them in front of the congregation. The commitment to raise your child well, be faithful to your partner or to responsibly move into adulthood can be strengthened considerably by these practices. Most of all, this experience further solidified my view that all traditions, religions, and cultures must be respected. We are all just people, trying to survive and build a life filled with friends and family that will remember our names when we are gone.

With my head on the pillow, and heart-beat in my ear, amid the vivid darkness, and stunning silence, I commune with the plight of Atlas. Once free men, bound by the clutches of greed, A once great democracy, laying prostrate, begging the titans of industry to let their voices be heard, the citizen majority begging for the right to affect change. A torrential rain of propaganda, cast down, piled on those unable to discern truth from lies. A wounded country that no longer believes we deserve good health. A crumbling democracy that is no longer permitted to rethink being.

I have many bad habits that affect my health including a penchant for deep fried foods and alcohol. One bad habit that really raises my blood-pressure is my thrice-weekly habit of listening to Glenn Beck on my way to the office. On this fine morning, the self-righteous neophyte of knowledge was claiming that the Health Care reforms working their way through Congress are, in fact, Unconstitutional. True to his nature, Beck, did not spend any time pointing out which parts of the Constitution he thought would be violated, nor did he cite one single precedent-setting Supreme Court case to support his outlandish oratory. No surprise. I guess I’ll do all the “brain-thinky-work” for you, Glenn. There are two avenues that may be identified as possible paths to challenging the constitutionality of this bill. The first is what many commonly refer to as the “Commerce Clause”. For those of you who are factually and historically challenged like Mr. Beck, I will tell you that this clause is found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and authorizes Congress to: “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. This clause, in conjunction with the “Necessary and Proper Clause”, has long been used to allow the government to expand rights and create social programs. People on the extreme right challenged the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that the Federal Government had no right to force white business owners to serve African Americans in the Supreme Court case: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States. The racists lost, and the power of the “Commerce Clause” was re-affirmed. Additionally, if the country in general has accepted something as sweeping as the EMTALA law passed in 1986 (the one that says hospitals participating in medicare cannot turn away un-insured people who are about to die) then the hopes of striking down this partially-funded mandate is quite improbable. People on the right may be hoping that the current Supreme Court will take drastic action and overturn a century of precedent, but let’s be intellectually honest in this argument. The precedent is clear. The second place to look for guidance on this question of constitutionality is the “General Welfare” clause. Also found in Article I, Section 8 states that: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States”. Hmm… “general welfare”, now that’s an inconvenient truth. I personally do not like the idea of a mandate on Americans to purchase health care, and even if that provision is declared unconstitutional, there is virtually no chance that the broad reform will be affected. To go back to a time where the commerce clause cannot be used to ensure rights, like those granted to African Americans only 45 years ago,would be a disastrous step back for our country. We are dealing with precedents set by the U.S. Supreme Court here, Glenn, so be careful what you wish for.

In the pre-dawn hours of a crisp Wyoming morning, a 21 year old gay man was tied to a fencepost and beaten into a coma by two attackers. Matthew Shepard had met two men at a bar the night before who offered him a ride home. Little did he know that these two men were looking for someone to rob and also had a deep-seated disdain for homosexuals. These two men took Matthew Shepard to a remote location, tied him to a fencepost, beat him with the butt of a gun, and tortured him within inches of his life. Matthew was tied to the fencepost for 18 hours before he was found. Left to die by his assailants, Matthew’s face was covered in blood from multiple skull fractures and lacerations, except where his tears had washed away the blood. On October 12th, 1998 Matthew Shepard died of his injuries. What could push two young men with their whole lives ahead of them and no history of violence to commit such a heinous crime? I believe that this act and others like it are caused by societal condemnation of homosexual masculinity and in turn a feeling that homosexuals have no value in our society. Obviously this is an extreme example of what happens when a group or class is declared to have no value to society. The atrocities of Adolf Hitler against the Jewish population of Europe, is an even more extreme example of the possible effects of devaluing a group or class. The United States of America should never let any class of people become so demonized that violence, harassment, and murder are acceptable responses to a group’s mere existence. It is my assertion that homosexual and heterosexual men are equally valid and equally trustworthy role models of masculinity not only for male children, but for all men in any society. Our society must attack the inequality of treatment that homosexuals endure through legislation and education. We must pursue legislation that provides equality in housing, jobs, adoption, and marriage. Additionally we must teach our children that homosexuality is not a choice, is a natural phenomenon, and should never be demonized. Sadly, we live in a society that resoundingly embraces hyper-masculinity and is quick to demonize homosexuals as unnatural, untrustworthy, and unacceptable. If you are skeptical that a problem even exists, think back and tell me when was the last time you were asked to not bring your partner to the family Christmas celebration; when was the last time you were fired from a job because your boss did not approve of who you sleep with at night; when was the last time you were told that you could not be trusted to adopt a child who desperately needs a home; when was the last time you were told your relationship had less value than others and therefore you cannot marry the person you love; when was the last time you were told that the feelings you have within are unnatural and disturbing; when was the last time you were told that you could not serve in the US Armed Forces because you could not be trusted to keep your sexual urges under control in a fox-hole; when was the last time that you were told that you could not join the boy-scouts even if you wanted, because you are homosexual; when was the last time that you were told that even in the grips of a blood shortage that your country did not want one drop of your blood? Any person who has been made to endure these experiences will undoubtedly know that there is indeed a problem to be solved. The attitudes that inflict these experiences on others are rooted in an obviously inconsistent assertion: that even if homosexuals exhibit traditionally accepted and masculine attributes, like the desire to serve their country or father a child, those attributes in turn lose their value. The division over the validity of homosexual masculinity among the American people has caused countless conflicts in our society and in our families. In my researched argument, I will focus on the debate surrounding three of the most prevalent aspects and concerns surrounding the validity and value of homosexual masculinity in our modern society. I plan to prove that there is no evidence to support the notion that homosexuals have a predilection to commit crimes against children, that gays should even be considered experts on masculinity because society forces them to question their own masculinity from an early age, and that homosexuality is not only natural but common in complex creatures. The assertion that gay men will molest male children is equally as preposterous as asserting that straight men are sure to molest female children. I think we can all agree that people who commit crimes against children cannot be described in terms of homosexual and heterosexual; they are sick. Unfortunately, there are still many people that view homosexuals as ineffective and untrustworthy role models for male children because of an incorrect belief that they are more likely than heterosexual men to commit crimes against children or at the very least attempt to convince young men to become homosexual themselves. Dr. Gregory Herek of U.C. Davis notes in an online publication that during a campaign to repeal antidiscrimination law in Florida recording artist, actress, and activist Anita Bryant warned that “a particularly deviant minded teacher could sexually molest children” (1). This line of thought is continued by James Dobson PhD. in an excerpt from his “Men R Fools” book that was sent to supporters in the form of an e-mailed “letter”. Dobson asserts that the “overriding goal of homosexual activists is to influence the next generation and recruit children to their movement, if not their lifestyle” (2). The belief that Homosexuals are more likely to commit crimes against children is widespread and deep-seeded. I have found that even fair-minded people have a predilection to believe this myth. Dr. Herek goes on to note that although the numbers have decreased since 1970, a 1999 national poll found that “the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children” was held by “19% of heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women” (1). This idea that homosexuals are more likely to commit crimes against children is perpetuated partly by The Family Research Council and a report they commissioned that “appears at first glance to be a thorough and scholarly discussion of the issue” (Herek 7). Upon further review, Dr. Herek concludes that “its central argument doesn’t hold up” (7). After assessing each study cited in the Family Research Council article written by Timothy J. Dailey, Dr. Herek concludes that many of the studies are unrelated to the original assertion and that two of the studies cited by Dailey actually concluded that there was not a connection between homosexuals and an elevated occurrence of crimes against children (Herek 12). Finally Herek states simply that “the empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children” (14). The sad fact is that there is an entire segment of the population continuing to segregate gay family members from their children because of their discomfort with and ignorance to the facts about homosexuals and crimes against children. The truth is, if homosexuals were more likely to commit crimes against children by any measureable degree it would be clearly and unequivocally shown in the data and research. It is not. As men participating in society, homosexuals by definition represent a natural configuration of masculinity. If same-sex attraction has been present in almost every culture and society from our earliest recorded history until now, how could anyone insist that homosexual masculinity has no value to our society? Additionally, any gay man growing up in a society that is underpinned by hyper-masculinity and a disdain for homosexuality is forced to examine their own masculinity very carefully. Unfortunately, many people insist that homosexuality is an obvious contradiction of masculinity and that by definition homosexuality is the antithesis of masculinity. In the military, on school yards, college campuses, and sports fields across this country homosexual men and women, or even the idea of being homosexual, are routinely shown disdain. Phrases like “that’s so gay” and “quit being a fag” are commonplace in a school setting. I have encountered situations like this many times in both a school and work setting across multiple employers. Once while working at a UPS hub, an older co-worker started to tell me a story about his ex-wife and her “faggot” friend. He did not know I was gay and obviously felt very comfortable blurting out a term like this in the presence of someone who he assumed was heterosexual. On a different occasion an older male co-worker approached me to tell me a joke. “Hey, if there are two queers and two lesbians who are racing each other on a cross country trip, who will get to the end first?” I’ll spare you the punch line. Just a few weeks ago, in an IUPUI classroom I heard a classmate sitting behind me react to information he did not like by declaring “that’s so gay”. This phrase has permeated popular culture and is the chosen statement to express disgust about any subject among young men in this country. What causes straight men to denote all that is negative and undesirable with homosexuality? What are they so afraid of? Arlene Stein of Rutgers University, in an article published in the Gender & Society journal, reports that when some heterosexual men are “confronted with contradictions in their own masculinity, they project their insecurities onto others” (602). It is obvious that most men do not perfectly epitomize hegemonic masculinity and, as a result, will discover discrepancies between who they are and who society wants them to be. Instead of pursuing the false-prophet of perfection, we should embrace everyone’s unique journey through manhood and judge on merit a man’s validity as a role model. Unfortunately, homosexuals are seen by some as the complete opposite of masculine and homosexuality is seen as a dangerous pitfall for boys and men alike. Dobson contends that the idea of homosexuals getting married “is just one more way that our culture is diminishing the natural, innate differences between the sexes and leaving boys confused about their masculinity” (4). Homosexuality is even seen as a possible consequence if there is not an active father figure present in the home (Dobson 4). In contrast Stein points out that “The existence of homosexual men who are masculine and lesbian women who are mothers threatens the conservative belief in absolute gender differences, and reveals a fundamental incoherence in its discourse” (617). Furthermore in the arena of military service, organized sports, and labor-intensive jobs there seems to be a paradoxical display of homosexual athleticism. In these situations, homosexual team-members are already contesting hegemonic masculinity by excelling at something physical. The presence of anti-gay discourse like “that’s so gay” and “quit being a fag” in these situations may be a way of keeping homosexuals from attaining enviable masculinity that the conservative viewpoint would find so confusing. The conservative argument that homosexuals are unable to provide positive masculine guidance completely falls apart when evidence surfaces of homosexuals doing exactly that. Eric Anderson at the University of California Irvine, writing in the Gender & Society journal reports that “by creating a hostile environment toward the acceptance of homosexuality even before the team is made aware of the actual presence of a gay athlete on the team, such discourse helps protect the reproduction of hegemonic masculinity from the threat of gay athleticism” (875). Creating a hostile environment for homosexuals who exhibit traits associated with hegemonic masculinity is something that our society should reject and instead embrace all experiences of maleness as valid forms of masculinity. The truth is that for young gay men dealing with their homosexuality, the first and most terrifying person they must be honest with is themselves. When the feelings and yearnings gay men feel deep inside are crassly denounced by others as deviant, unnatural, and feminine in nature, they must toil internally just to accept themselves. This intense self-evaluation and acceptance of our own imperfect masculinity is a valuable lesson for male children and adult men in any society. Additionally, if the responsibilities of masculinity can be described as how men in any given culture analyze and accept the desires that lie within and the consequent obligations to their culture, then homosexuals must be regarded as experts on the subject. Homosexual masculinity is masculinity. Because homosexuality occurs in many complex species throughout the natural world, by definition it cannot be unnatural. Is a male lion’s pride of female lionesses unnatural because human society recently became less comfortable with the idea of multiple partners? When a male seahorse gives birth to his young, is that sea horse desecrating the natural order of the planet? To my dismay, many people will ignore science, draw from their religious beliefs, and declare that homosexuality is an unnatural construct of deviant human beings and therefore should be at least segregated from society, if not snuffed out completely. Dobson describes homosexuals as “immature, immoral, weak-willed, cowardly and self-indulgent” (4). Stein establishes that still others think that “homosexuals represent untamed, undisciplined male sexuality, unrestrained by women” (609). Ironically, these descriptions likely represent a heavily veiled jealousy felt by religious conservatives, caused in large part by the success of their own message. Regardless, in all of these cases homosexuality is seen as immoral and unnatural. I accept that many religious traditions clearly address homosexuality and largely denounce it as an abomination. But I challenge those of you who adamantly base your opinions of equality and freedom on contemporary religious ideology, to accept that history has proven your path a disastrous one. The Supreme Court and the American people have long ago rejected the doctrine of “separate but equal” used to segregate black from white and embraced the notion of “equal protection of the laws” promised in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (US). Because religiously based arguments have been used to support societal abominations like slavery, anti-miscegenation laws, and the Spanish Inquisition I will not attempt to address the real or imagined religious dogma that many believe homosexuality violates. Instead I will concentrate on science and observation. Jeffrey Kluger, writing in Time magazine notes that linguist and cognitive scientist Bruce Bagemihl’s 1999 book Biological Exuberance raises the point that “if homosexuality comes naturally to other creatures, perhaps it’s time to quit getting into such a lather over the fact that it comes naturally to humans too” (1). The research of Bruce Bagemihl provides a stark distinction from the viewpoint that homosexuality is unnatural, pointing out that homosexual behavior and pairing has been observed in more than 450 of the 2,000 species that scientists have studied to this degree of detail (Kluger 1). Additionally, the same-sex encounters were not just short term arrangements, in the case of Humboldt penguins up to six years, and in the case of graylag geese up to fifteen years (Kluger 2). In this situation, people must accept the facts. Humans are just another mammal that became dominant on Earth; we were not chosen by God to be divine rulers of the planet, and we must all face the fact that homosexuality is present in nature. Homosexuality is natural. If homosexual masculinity is natural then it must also be enviable in most cases. Enviable masculinity is present in any man who is serving society in a positive way. Any man who is working towards an education, raising a child, paying property taxes, being a good friend to others, running a successful business, serving in the military, excelling at sports, or even something as simple as going to work every day and doing a good job should be envied, regardless of sexuality. To admit that many homosexuals meet some criteria of hegemonic masculinity is a powerful argument for an expanded view of enviable masculinity. And as Eric Anderson points out, “the mere existence of openly gay male athletes in sports suggests that hegemonic masculinity is not seamless and that it can and is already beginning to be contested” (864). Accepting homosexual masculinity as valid would create a paradigm shift in American society and would spur many changes. Homosexuals would have to be viewed as equals in all cases including military service, organized sports, and the donation of blood. Additionally, a shift like this would have implications that effect issues like gay marriage and gay adoption. Just as Americans finally rejected laws keeping inter-racial couples from marrying based on a fear and distrust of African American masculinity, so too will America cast off the shackles of ignorance in the case of same-sex marriage. American society must adopt a mindset that applies complete equality of treatment, respect, and opportunities to homosexuals or the promise of equality laid out in the U.S. Constitution and subsequent amendments will not be complete. The US Constitution has long been used to dispel irrational fears and change the paradigm of thought in our country. The truth is, we all struggle with irrational fear of one type or another. Lots of people are terrified to fly in airplanes, even though they are the safest mode of travel. Many people struggle with irrational fear in the case of different cultures and world religions. But, any fear we experience that does not have a legitimate basis should be examined carefully and the ill effects of such attitudes eliminated. If there is still any doubt in your mind that there is in fact a problem that needs a solution, consider the discrepancy between Canada and the United States on the subject of hate crimes. According to Humanrightsfirst.org, Canada reported having only 45 hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation in 2006. (Hate) Same-sex marriage has been legal in all of Canada since 2003. Canada’s culture and society seems to have found a way to keep a connection with faith and religion without letting it dictate the laws of their democracy. In comparison, we here in the U.S. reported a staggering 1,195 hate crimes in 2006 (2008). Even when you factor in the differences in total population we still have 3 times as many per capita attacks than Canada, not to mention that these crimes are under-reported in the United States. Furthermore, stories like that of what happened to Matthew Shepard continue to this day. On November 12th of 2009 , Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado, a gay college student and activist in Puerto Rico was partially decapitated, burned, and left by the side of the road. It is a fact, the violence continues. People who are convinced of the validity and value of homosexual masculinity to our society agree that further development of equality and widespread acceptance are imperative to making our society greater and more inclusive. For the people who do not share the view of complete equality, we must utilize legislation and education to gently nudge them into the 21st century. We must keep in mind that even though “the hope of legal change through the courts directly may be hollow, the indirect effects of legal mobilization may spur the building of a strong social movement and community institutions which, in the long run, may be the best progenitors of social change and effective policy” (Nicol & Smith 669). When we as a society accept as fact the assertion that homosexuals are not inclined to commit crimes against children, homosexuality is not the antithesis of masculinity, and homosexuality is natural, then we will have achieved real equality. This struggle is about winning over the hearts and minds of the American public. If Matthew Shepard had lived in a society that embraced all manifestations of masculinity, he would not have been tied to a fencepost and beaten to death. If Matthew Shepard had lived in a society affirming homosexual and heterosexual men as equally valid and equally trustworthy role models of masculinity for all men in any society, Matthew Shepard would still be alive today. We can do better. We must do better. Bibliography “2008 Hate Crime Survey: USA – IV. Violence Based on Sexual Orientation Bias.” Human Rights First Internet. Available: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/discrimination /reports.aspx?s=usa&p=violence-based-on-sexual-orientation-bias Anderson, Eric. “Openly Gay Athletes: Contesting Hegemonic Masculinity in a Homophobic Environment.” Gender & Society 16.6 (December 2002): 860-877. Print. Dobson, James C., PhD. “Radical Feminism Shortchanges Boys.” Focus on the Family. November 2004. 2 September 2009. Available: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/ “Hate Crime Report Card – Canada.” Human Rights First Internet. Available: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/discrimination/pages.aspx?id=102 Herek, Gregory M., Ph.D., “Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation”. University of California Davis. Internet. 13 September 2009. Available: www.ucdavis.com. Kluger, Jeffrey.”The Gay Side of Nature.” Time Magazine Online April 18 1999 Internet. 20 September 2009. Available: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,23309,00.html Nicol, Nancy. “Legal Struggles and Political Resistance: Same-Sex Marriage in Canada and the USA.” Sexualities 11.2 (2008): 667-687. Print. Stein, Arlene. “Make Room For Daddy: Anxious Masculinity and Emergent Homophobias in Neopatriarchal Politics.” Gender & Society 19.5 (October 2005): 601-620. Print. Sullivan, Andrew, Ph.D., “The Politics of Homosexuality”. New Republic. 10 May 1993. 1-13 Web. US Const., amendment 14, section 1

On a rainy day in November the Indiana General Assembly was buzzing with activity. It was Organization Day and when I entered the basement level of the General Assembly and immediately I saw legislative assistants, interns, and legislators rushing around me. Ironically the inside of the basement level looks nothing like a grand government building, more like a dilapidated and run-down office building. The monotone yellow walls and pot-marked floors showed the wear and tear of a functioning democracy. I was totally lost and was hesitant to ask for help from any one of these hurried individuals. Fortunately a thirty-something staffer saw that I was lost and slowed his pace long enough to point me in the direction of the proper staircase. I entered the main level, immediately impressed with the architectural beauty of the building, and asked for directions again. Eventually I made my way to the Senate chamber’s balcony on the 4th floor. Although I had been told that the session did not start until 1:00 PM, I was lucky enough to enter the balcony as a tour for out-of-town constituents were being shown the Senate chamber. I listened as the “tour guide” explained some things about the room itself, the Indiana state flag, and the General Assembly in general. She pointed out that the Indiana State Senate was comprised of 50 Senators and explained a bit about the buttons on the desk that cast a vote, that in turn shows up on an electronic screen. The woman guiding the tour also mentioned that all proceeding can be watched via a webcam accessible by the Indiana Government website: www.in.gov. She explained that freshman Senators and those with less seniority had to sit at the back of the room and those more senior Senators get to sit closer to the front of the room. I also found it interesting to know that each State Senator represents about one hundred and twenty-five thousand people. One feature that I noticed about the Senate chamber was that it actually seemed kind of small. There were three levels of windows on three of the walls that peered into offices, giving the residents of those offices a great view of the Senate floor. The tour guide noted that the room had been recently remodeled and that the walls had been brought in to make room for those offices. She also explained the meaning behind the Indiana State flag. There are 19 stars on the flag representing the 18 states that came before us and the 19th, and biggest star, represents the State of Indiana. She explained further that the beams or lines coming from the main star and torch represented the influence that we cast on the other states around us. I had never heard an explanation like this regarding the meaning of the flag and found it to be very interesting. Overall, I really enjoyed my time at the Indiana General Assembly. I was surprised to find that the people were so helpful in directing me where to go. Everyone seemed to be moving with a purpose on this day and I could not imagine a more appropriate setting to be the hive of our democracy. Someday I hope to work in the Indiana General Assmebly, whether it is as a legislative assistant or legislator.

Although great strides have been made in achieving equality on issues of race and gender, homosexuals have achieved very little in terms of concrete laws aimed to create and preserve fair treatment. We live in a society that devalues gays by denying them the right to marry, donate blood, and serve openly in the military. Gay men cannot join the boy scouts, must fight for hospital visitation rights, and are often excluded from family gatherings. Gay men can be fired from their job, simply for being gay and are often discouraged or outright banned from adopting children in some states. In the most extreme situations, homosexuals are even the target of violent crime that is meant to terrify the community into submission and silence. On November 12th of this year, Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado, a gay college student and activist in Puerto Rico was partially decapitated, burned, and left by the side of the road. We can all help solve this problem by working diligently towards creating an atmosphere of acceptance around homosexuals, starting with legalizing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Marriage is not only a financial and spiritual affirmation of a relationship, but also a societal acknowledgement that a relationship has value. Although there are many inequalities to be dealt with, marriage would create the biggest sea-change in public opinion and in turn make the broadest statement about America’s passion for freedom, liberty, and equality. In Canada, where same-sex marriage is legal and also more broadly accepted, the number of hate crimes per capita is roughly 1/3 as many as here in the United States. Their culture and society has found a way to keep a connection with faith and religion without letting it dictate the laws of a democracy. Not only will a change in policy create a change in how people treat gays and lesbians, it will also open the door to solving all of the other inequalities thrust on homosexuals in this country. Additionally, a strong argument can and should be made that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution established a government that “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. If the only legitimate political argument against same-sex marriage is a religious one, we must ask ourselves: are we using “law” to respect “an establishment of religion? Also, when looking for justification to end segregation and allow inter-racial marriage, the Supreme Court of the United States of America turned to the 14th amendment to the Constitution that states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens”. The biggest opponents of carving out any more equality from the Constitution seems to be religious conservatives. I accept that the religious dogma that guides them clearly denounces homosexuality as a sin and an abomination. What I am asking religious conservatives to accept is that when Protestant Reformation leader Martin Luther described the imperative division between the “City of Man” and the “City of God”, he did not include any caveats. You can keep your faith, embrace your religion, and still allow others to experience the freedom and equality that you have been so fortunate to receive. If this justification does not quell your fears, then maybe the answer is to completely cut the umbilical cord between state-approved marriage and religiously-approved marriage. The answer may be to make all documents, forms, and descriptions by the government concerning marriage to simply be “civil-marriage”, completely exorcising the religious connotations that many in the faith community find to be so distasteful. We must find a solution to this problem or our society will continue to scapegoat classes of people and fail to live up to the promise of the Constitution and subsequent amendments. Just keep in mind that history has not, and will not, view positively those who work against the expansion of freedom liberty, and equality.

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) recently told reporters that he would reserve the right to join Republicans in their Filibuster of the Democratic Health Care Bill if there is a strong “Public Option”. This announcement comes as Research 2000 released a poll that showed 52 percent of Indiana voters back a Public Option. Why would Senator Bayh stand in the way of his own party’s agenda? Here are some FACTS about Sen. Bayh and his wife Susan: -Senator Bayh has taken more than 1.5 million dollars in campaign contributions from insurance companies. -Susan Bayh was a corporate lawyer for the Eli Lilly’s Phamaceutical division from 1989-1994 -Susan Bayh has been a Director of Nastech Pharmaceutical Co. Inc., since May 25, 2005. -Susan Bayh served as a Director of Cubist Pharmaceuticals Inc., from June 2000 to September 29, 2004 -Susan Bayh served as a Director of Anthem Insurance Companies Inc., (subsidiary of WellPoint Inc) from 1998 to May 2003. This list is actually an abbreviated version of how the tentacles of corporate greed have infected the Bayh Family. The thing that they do not understand is poverty. Has Senator Bayh or his wife ever had to choose between paying bills or buying groceries? Has Senator Bayh and his wife ever sacrificed their health because of an inability to afford medical treatment? Has Senator Bayh and his wife ever known anything other than privilege, financial security, and unfettered income potential? No, they have not. Do your part and contact Senator Evan Bayh to demand a public option. Here is the message I sent to Senator Bayh: Sen. Bayh, I was disgusted to hear that you were willing to support a filibuster against the Democratic Health Care Bill because of your opposition to the Public Option. Considering the fact that your wife sits on the board of Wellpoint and your own political contributions from the industry, you can no longer be trusted to represent the people of Indiana. I am looking forward to voting for your Democratic Primary challenger in 2010.

… Doesn’t mean I can fix your computer problems. If your BlackJack smart phone won’t send outgoing e-mail, you should probably call AT&T. If your laptop computer is making a revving sound and draining the battery, I’m sure I couldn’t tell you why. Just because I am under 30 does not mean I can fix your technology issues. I just had to get that off my chest… Also, an expanded post about the ongoing healthcare fight is on the way. -JP

I’m not kidding…

**UPDATE** By the way, When I first posted this, I thought there was a chance this story was a little over the top…. but I guess not. Go here for an update on Cheney’s craziness.