Texas Same-Sex Couples File Lawsuit To Overturn Marriage Ban

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/27/texas-same-sex-marriage-lawsuit_n_4353006.html

A suit filed on behalf of Cleopatra De Leon and Nicole Dimetman from Austin, Texas is trying to force an overturn of the 2005 law that bans gay marriage by stating that marriage is restricted to being between a woman and a man. The couple is from Texas and lives in Texas but were married in Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal and recognized.

Texas has attempted to overturn the law before and failed. But the trend in many states is that it is now being recognized and made legal. Same-sex marriage is becoming much more mainstream than previously and is not legal in approximately twelve states.

Texas, a widely Republican state, has fought staunchly against the law being overturned. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is a big supporter of the law and he strongly believes that marriage should only be allowed and recognized between a man and a woman. Republicans have long supported this belief as well and feel that they are fighting to protect the traditional institute of marriage in Texas.

I am from a mostly Republican family and upbringing myself and although I respect the right of people to think what they will, I also believe that it is unfair to say that homosexuality and gay marriage is wrong and should not be legal or allowed. The right to love another human should be extended to all, no matter who or what sex, and to think otherwise is to be short-sided and prejudiced.

It is unfortunate that the world has grown so much and become such an amazing place and yet we still find ourselves battling the same battles we have been fighting for so many years. When will grow enough as humans and as a society to stop pinning labels to people and holding against them the way they love and the way they live their lives?

“San Antonio attorney Daniel McNeel Lane, the lead counsel for both couples, said current Texas law banning same-sex marriage runs counter to the U.S. Constitution and is a "badge of inferiority."”

To use the Constitution as a banner and a flag to further prejudiced thoughts and feelings really makes me angry. The Constitution, although put together in a different place and a different time, was never created to punish people or our country because they felt differently or believed something that no everyone believed. We created this country because we stood up and refused to believe what we were told to believe. Good people have fought and died over hundreds of years to give us the liberty to say today what we want to say and to be today who we want to be. I really wish that the country would wake up and remember what we started all of this for and realize that the battles that we fight amongst ourselves, do nothing but weaken us as a country. 

Pizza Hut Employee: I Was Fired For Defending Thanksgiving

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/27/pizza-hut-fired-thanksgiving_n_4350121.html?utm_hp_ref=business

I came across this little article the day before Thanksgiving and I had to include it in the articles that I wrote about in my blog. I have worked in a field for most of my working life that required me, many times, to work on holidays and to spend the time away from my family while everyone else enjoyed the holiday with those that they love. However I knew when I chose my career field that I would have to work most, if not all, of the holidays. I explained that to my family before I began and did so knowing this was a part of my choice. But many of these people that are being forced to give up their holidays these days, never took their jobs thinking that they would ever have to give away the chance to spend Thanksgiving and Christmas with their family and loved ones. Why should people be forced to make a choice between their job and their loved ones just because the company that they work for got greedy and decided that money was more important?

I find it interesting that this lone Pizza Hut manager is being punished by his company for wanting to stand up for the employees that work for him. A good leader and manager always has the best in mind for the company but also thinks about what is best for his employees as well. Is it really so important to stay open for that one day during the year instead of letting their employees have one day to enjoy and be thankful for with their family and their loved ones? Is it really so wrong for him to want to take care of his employees? Would the money they make for the company in that one day really be worth a job and a career of over ten years with the same company? This manager has obviously been a loyal employee and there are a good deal less people that are willing to work so many years at one job. It makes more sense to me that they would reward him for his years of service and for wanting to take care of the employees that work for him rather than forcing him to pencil some ill-conceived resignation.

"Thanksgiving and Christmas are the only two days that they're closed in the whole year and they're the only two days that those people are guaranteed to have off to spend with their families.”

The bad press alone that Pizza Hut is going to receive because of this story, seems like it would be enough to have them rethink their position. Imagine how much better the press would be for them if they stood behind their manager and changed their position, saying that the lives of their employees were more important than one day of sales for the company. I personally think that it is a bad move for the company and that the “juice clearly is not worth the squeeze” in this particular situation. It would do well for many companies to re-examine their thoughts about these two particular holidays and to decide if that one day of sales is really worth the hardship that it causes for their employees.

Atheist Ad at Angelika Theater in Plano, Texas Stokes Controversy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/30/atheist-advertisements-angelika-plano-texas_n_1465009.html

Religion has always been a source of a great many arguments since the dawn of man. (In fact, there are religious arguments about that as well!). It is doubtful that this argument will be put to rest anytime in the near future, if ever. Although there are many arguments about just whose religion is the one religion, there is a raging debate going between those that believe in any religion and those that believe in none. The Atheist movement is one that is large and they have been known to push the boundaries in trying to get their message across. They believe in their message just as strongly as the Christians believe in the message they have to convey as well.

Recently this disagreement was put to the test in Texas during the debate over a commercial being paid to air at a theater in Plano. The Atheists wished to have a message played that supported their cause. But just a day before they were to start airing, the theatre pulled the messages that touted a “Great Without Religion” message. There is already talk of a discrimination lawsuit being filed and this certainly is not the first time that the two sides have clashed in a court room and it probably will not be the last. Both sides have an equal passion for their message and will not easily give in unless forced to do so.

“Advertisements selling an atheist message have often stoked controversy. Last year, a federal judge ruled in favor of local atheists to run ads that read, "Are you good without God? Millions are" on public transit buses after the Central Arkansas Transit Authority initially rejected them.”

It is really disturbing that we are still seeing these battles fought over being able to state what one believes when the right to freedom of speech is something that we founded our new country on and that we have been fighting to maintain for many years. Why is it that some people are so set against an idea that they will fight to keep it from even being voiced rather than letting it be freely voiced and allowing people to make their own decision about whether they agree with it or not. Human beings are free to think and feel what they wish and to fight the idea of that, even based upon religion, is just wrong on so many levels.

If we stop people from being able to voice their opinions about something as free a choice as what religion you wish to practice or not practice, then where will the censorship stop? When will people ever stop fighting to keep each other from talking and just let everyone be free to know as much information as they want to know and make their own decisions based upon that?

Woman Released After Questions About Abuse Case

http://www.aol.com/article/2013/11/27/woman-released-after-questions-about-abuse-case/20777251/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D412396

There are many cases that are tried each and every day and many of those cases are based upon evidence. Some of that evidence comes from expert witnesses and has no other standing other than what the expert has told the court and the jury. This type of evidence is used daily and if it starts coming into question on a regular basis, it starts to shake what the courts system is doing and is based upon. But we also must realize that it would be wrong to have a person convicted and jailed upon evidence that was not correctly processed or identified. Humans are capable of error and are capable of making the wrong judgment. Imagine if you found yourself being accused and convicted of something that you were not responsible or guilty for and you knew that the only way that you could be freed of the crime was to show that the expert witness testimony was not correct. I am sure that you would agree that it would only be right to do everything possible to make sure that you did everything you could to fix it.

Take this case where a woman that had been convicted twenty years ago for engaging in ritual child abuse and has been in prison in Texas ever since. After twenty years of sitting in custody for one of the most horrific crimes one can be charged with, the hurting of an innocent child, the doctor who had given expert witness testimony changed his mind. He came back and told the courts that the injuries he had identified that were a key piece of evidence in the trial, were actually not lacerations at all but were part of the normal physiology of the child.

What?!

First of all, how does a trained doctor identify something as an injury when it is actually just a normal part of a person? And in the possibility that does happen and then that faulty testimony goes on to be used as a key piece of evidence in convicting someone, how does it take that same doctor twenty years to determine that he has made a mistake and try to fix it? How does that even happen?! Was he just sitting in the living room one night watching television when he decided that he needed to go pull up a twenty year old case and review it and decide that he had made a mistake?

I just do not get it. This sounds like one of those cases where the initial investigators had the very best of intentions when finding a possible crime involving children but instead managed to find evidence for conviction when that evidence may not have existed quite as it should have. Perhaps this doctor made the mistake he did because he was looking for the evidence to exist and not necessarily looking at it with the untainted eyes that he needed to.

Or, maybe, they got it right the first time and these people were guilty of everything that they were accused of. That is why the law is so hard to enforce and get right the first time.

Newton Report Renews Focus on the Role of Lanza's Mom

http://news.yahoo.com/newtown-report-renews-focus-role-lanzas-mom-203652944.html

Adam Lanza managed to shoot and kill the most innocent of victims when he took his firearms and went to the Newton school with murder on his mind. It is only within his mind that we would find all of the true thoughts and reasons for why he decided to do what he ultimately did. In looking for reasons for his behavior, we all try to put some type of reasoning behind the behavior. It is so much easier for us to think about if we just say that he was crazy and that there was nothing human about him left. But I think it is more truthful to say that there were many factors that contributed to his behavior. The most important one that is pointed out in this particular article is the influence of his mother. But it is also worth pointing out his own thoughts and feelings and the influence of the world around him.

One of the ways that Adam Lanza’s mother found herself bonding with her adolescent son, was over firearms and the shooting of those firearms. Did she really understand how truly troubled he was and think about how the interaction with firearms would interact with his twisted way of thinking? It is hard for me to believe that if she truly knew him the way that reporters and investigators lead us to believe, that she would have continued to encourage him to be in the presence of guns – much less possess one.

“Adam Lanza's fascination with violence was apparent to teachers and other acquaintances, investigators said in their report. He collected materials on mass killings and kept a spreadsheet ranking of mass murders.”

Investigation into their relationship told investigators that Adam did not allow his mother into his room so it could well be that she did not truly know what was really going on inside his head. It would be hard for me to believe that any sane parent could find something as sinister as a spreadsheet ranking mass murders and not be concerned about the sanity of their child. That brings to my mind the question of why would any parent allow their child to have such broad power to tell them that they could not come into their room while they lived within their home. In this way, I do believe that her parenting could be seriously called into question. Would it have changed anything if she had been a different kind of parent and if she had taken more of an interest in what her son was thinking and how he was feeling? We will never know for sure. But I do think that it would have had a chance of making a positive difference and maybe, ultimately, it would have saved many tiny and innocent lives as well. The whole situation just makes me really sad and all the lives, including Adam Lanza’s, feel like such a needless waste.

Supreme Court and Insurance for Birth Control

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/supreme-court-hobby-lobby_n_4343794.html

I read a little article about this a few months ago and I was just as irritated at it then as I am now. I realize that a company provides insurance and that the insurance provided for their employees is going to have some limitations. That – I understand. What I do not understand is a company being able to place limitations on the insurance based upon their own personal or religious beliefs.  Honestly, how is this any different than not hiring someone based upon some prejudice? And if this is going to be the case with their insurance, were the people that were hired told this right up front? Did they hire on thinking that the insurance at this company was the same at most other companies and that it would cover this?

If this type of behavior is supported and allowed to be legally upheld, where will these type of restrictions end?

"As the federal government embarks on an unprecedented foray into health care replete with multiple overlapping mandates, few issues are more important than the extent to which the government must recognize and accommodate the religious exercise of those it regulates," Hobby Lobby's attorneys wrote to the Supreme Court in October.

I am not sure that I understand how a company can hire employees and then use their religious beliefs to determine what medical procedures their employees should and should not have by not funding the ones that they do not agree with. Does this also mean that if they decide that their religious beliefs do not support homosexual behavior, that they are not going to support any medical procedure that they feel supports this lifestyle? Or what if their religious beliefs support feeling that very obese people are somehow responsible for all of their own health problems and say that they are no longer going to pay for medicine for diabetes?

It is simply ridiculous to think that they would be able to determine what people should or should not be able to do by deciding that they are not going to pay for certain medical procedures and that this behavior would be supported as legal. It is my fervent hope that the Supreme Court will see the ridiculousness of this behavior and will determine that it is illegal. It is against everything that this country supports for them to be able to push their religious beliefs onto its employees by refusing to cover certain items because it is against a religious belief.

I realize that there are many people out there that do not agree with me and the way I feel about this topic. I am not the one having to put together my argument to present to the Supreme Court in hopes that they will rule the appropriate way. I will be interested to see what their final thoughts on this topic are going to be and how it will affect the general population and businesses and their restrictions on insurance payments.