eric james borges: LOVE

The tragedy in the story about Eric James Borges life is not how he died.  It is that he died for love at the hands so called Christians with their inflated egos and mangled moral virtues.   The same people who would have stoned Jesus Christ if he lived today.  These same Christians are shaken to the core when they realize that if Jesus lived today he would be a flaming liberal. 

Jesus lived his life being an example of love.  He cared for the widows, fed the hungry, healed the ill and gave hope to the outcast.  And that is why I know that Eric James Borges was more of a Christian than those that cast him aside in the name of Christ.  

That he was able to live his life according to the one commandment which Jesus gave us, LOVE, is remarkable given the horrible image of Christ he was exposed to.

This was Eric’s message:

  

It is blasphemy that because of whom Eric loved he was outcast, tortured and shuned all in the name of Christ.  Christ never shamed, shunned or outcast a single person.  God is love, and God was in Eric because Eric loved. That his own family did not recognize Christ’s love in him is shameful. 

I too grew up in a conservative Christian home, surrounded by dogmatic Christians. To say I was a troubled teen is putting it mildly.  I am alive not by my own strength of character; I attempted suicide in just about every imaginable way.  I am alive because of God’s grace and my mother’s love.

After having ran away from home a counselors told my mother, your son is gay what would you like to do next?   She said to her what do you mean?! I want to take him home with me of course he is my son. A few days later my mother said to me I may not understand everything but one thing I know is that you are my son and it is my duty to love you.  Her deep desire to love regardless of what society told her is a example of true  Christian moral code.

Homosexuality is about LOVE, about finding kinship, about feeling connected to another in a way that is deep and unique between the two.  There is nothing unique about homosexuality, it is the primal human desire to love and to feel loved that drives homosexuals to passionately defend their identity.  And that is what fueled Eric James Borges.  

He worked tirelessly trying to help others in pain to see that there was hope and that love was around them.

Toward the end of his “it gets better” video he says: you will fall in love, fall out of love and have your heart broken.  That is all he wanted that is all gay people want; to live love in its full expression, without fear of being persecuted, rejected or shamed. He just wanted to Love.

This lady pisses me off!

This blog post is in response the crazy lady that managed to get reelected town clerk, even when she blatantly broke the law.

N.Y. clerk who refused gay marriage licenses wins re-election

She has no religious freedom, as a government employee!  And thus she should be thrown in jail for failure to obey the law, not get reelected. 

It is outrageous to think that a government employee can set her personal RELIGIOUS believes ahead of those of a citizen?  When a government employee acts they act as an agent of the government, as though they are the government.  And as such they should have no right to use their personal bias above those of others.  Especially when the law requires a different outcome, as is the case here where the law granted the lesbians the right to marriage.

Under New York law a lesbian couple has the legal right to get married.  To do so they need a marriage license.  Clear as day!  Now for a government agent to say I will not issue that to you is wrong!!!!  Not because the lady has no legal right to have an opinion but because the government cannot discriminate.  And when acting as the clerk she is not an individual, she is the government.

Now if this argument does not work for the crazy-selfish lady.  How about we turn the tables on her?

Let’s say that a state department of motor vehicles employee has the religious moral conviction that women should not drive.  And now Ms. Religious Freedom goes to his window to request a driver’s license. Should the DMV agent have a right to refuse her the driver’s license based on his personal belief? 

This lady needs to remember she is a servant of the people.  Not their moral dictator.  And she also needs to keep in mind that religious freedom and using its “protection” for all government employees can really get us all in trouble.  Unless what she means by religious freedom is freedom for people to follow her moral code.

The insanity that this lady was reelected just proves how misguided many are as to religious freedom.  No!  A Government employee’s religious freedom should not trump her civic, legal duty to follow the law.  She is not acting as individuals and thus her individual freedoms should not dictate, at the expense of the freedoms of other.

And it is also important to remember that if we begin to trump other’s rights based on our religious freedom what then when someone else’s religious freedom interferes with mine.  We would do well to teach our citizens that it is freedom from religion.  Not freedom to impose our religious beliefs onto others.

APPLE INC: and the public’s right to know

The commercialization of information has created a “right to know” frenzy that has gone too far.  The mantra is “they are a public figure and the public has a right to know.”  

Once the individual is labeled a public figure the masses seem to take on an unforgiving and relentless desire to know anything and everything about the person.  This is insane!

And Apple illustrates this all too well.  This week Steve Jobs stepped down as CEO of Apple promptly thereafter Tim Cook was handed the reins.  Now we have a media frenzy surrounding the two public figures.  

First I ran across a few news articles that assure all would be interested parties that Mr. Cook is of the homosexual persuasion.  Really?!  Who cares?  He is running what is arguably the largest company in the world.  Yet we “have to know” that he is attracted to members of his same gender?  How is that relevant to the upcoming iphone5?  

The frenzy does not stop there some are demanding that he should come out.  They declare that he owes it to his fellow gays to come out and embrace his role as gay role model to gay nation.  Well no!  He does not have to do that.  Those who purchase cell phones or mp3 players are not doing it because apple has promised anything special to the gay community.  We make our purchases because we prefer their products.

The second example of overzealous exposure of a public figure is the case of the recently published photos of a frail looking Steve Jobs.  I read about it this first on Google+.   There I follow Mike Elgan, a tech industry writer.  He posted the link to the TMZ story, which included a thumbnail of the photo. 

In Mikes thread there were a lot of comments denouncing Mr. Elgan’s actions.  However, there were two comments that really caught my attention.  

The first was from Mr. Elgan himself he wrote something to the effect of the picture was out there already anyway.   To Mr. Elgan I say: sir you have missed the point.  

At some point we have to look inside and ask ourselves how I would want to be treated in this situation.  Or if it were my father how would I want the media to handle the situation?  Somewhere e in the rat race of commercialized information, journalist have lost the common sense and sensibility to remember that the people they are writing about or the people whose photos they are publishing are individuals who deserve dignity.  They have stopped asking themselves what purpose  is serve to by publish the article or the picture. Could I make the same point and still spare the person their dignity?  

The second comment came from a person who supported Mr. Elgan’s actions and he wrote something to the effect that since Mr. Job’s is a public figure we have a right to see the picture. To him I say no we do not have a right to see a photo of anyone who is losing his battle to cancer.  What exactly gives us that right?  We paid for merchandise and we received it; that is what Apple and Mr. Jobs owe us.  Mr. Jobs did not make his money based on his personality or his good health.  

It is extremely disheartening how cruel we can be to each other.  All because we were lead to believe, wrongly, that we have rights which we do not have.    

We do not have a right to pry into aspects of an individual’s life that are completely irrelevant to the reason they are in the public eye.

Meat nthe Middle: Gay Immigrant: my two-front war

Meat nthe Middle: Gay Immigrant: my two-front war

Gay Immigrant: my two-front war

Two of the most hotly followed topics seem to be colliding.  Gay and Immigration rights rarely intersect.  However, it should be noted that, in the past, organizers of both causes have come together to show a united front.  This is all about to change though.  Recent developments seem to be bringing these issues within striking distance of each other.  As a gay immigrant I could not be more delighted.

 I am constantly in a two-front war.  Either I have to dodge anti-immigrant or anti-gay legislature and rhetoric.  And the victories seem to come in small increments but only to remind me that my other important cause is being left behind.  Rarely do I get a victory that advances both causes.

Late last week it was revealed that Obama has instructed the Department of Homeland Security, which overseas U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency in charge of deportations, to exercise discretion when determining which cases to prosecute.  It was revealed that the Government will seek to focus on those immigrants who pose a threat to national security.  This means that individuals who do not fall under that category may have their cases dismissed or set aside indefinitely.

Another recent development is the Department of Justice declaration that it can no longer defend the indefensible (Defense of Marriage Act). 

These two recent developments will almost certainly require that Immigration Judges set aside any deportation proceedings in cases involving bi-national gay couples (especially if the non-citizen is considered a non-threat to national security). 

This is evident by ICE’s decision to close the case involving a San Francisco gay couple.  This will allow Alex Benshimol and Douglas Gentry to stay together.  You can read the story here.   Yet another example is the case of Violeta Pando and her Mexican national wife Sujey.  Colorado Judge Mimi Tsankov halted the deportation case entirely.  You can read the Advocate’s story by clicking on this link.

While a sweeping and definitive win would be ideal I still celebrate the incremental victories. 

DOMA, with its obviously bigoted intent, should have been repealed a long time ago.  Never has a law been so out of touch with its “intended” purpose.  How is it that a law that is supposed to defend marriage does not address the number one threat to marriage – divorce?  Neither the law nor its defenders have ever identified how it is that gay marriage is a threat to opposite sex marriage. 

For government to have on its books a law that does nothing more than to inscribe into law religiously fueled bias is utterly un-democratic. 

For all of those who cry patriotism and who self describe as conservative.  I ask them to take a look at DOMA and explain to me, or themselves at the very least.  How is it that you can stand for small government, freedom of religion, and liberty and justice for all and yet defend a law that spits on the face of every single one of those constitutional pillars?  DOMA is un-American.  And it is time that conservatives recognized this.

Activist Judges at it Again!!!!!!!!!!

U.S. Appeals Court Rules Against Obama's Health Care Law

 

I have a question for those who applauded the ruling.  The same people who are up in arms every time a judge declares discriminatory law unconstitutional or require that government afford gay people the right to marry.  The cries are all the same:  Oh judges are creating law! Judges should simply interpret law not dictate moral code! Activist judges!

To these people I ask: what do you think of the judges that declared the part of the Obamacare which mandates insurance unconstitutional, by your reasoning these are activist judges right?  Why are they dictating law from the bench?  They should stick to interpreting Obamacare not overturning it! Right?

When I asked this question to my facebook friends one them responded: these judges are interpreting law, they are not making new law about gay rights. 

To him and all of you who may think the same way I say you cannot have it both ways. 

You cannot say that judges who overturn laws you don’t like are within their duty and those that overturn laws you like (or uphold laws you don’t like) are activist.  

When judges overturn discriminatory law they are not creating new law, they are holding the government to the standard set by the constitution, the part that requires that government treat all citizens equal. When the judges require that government stay out of people's bedrooms they are not creating new law they are holding the government to the standard set by the constitution, the part that ensures every citizen's privacy.

These judges are not giving gay people new rights.  Gay people already have rights, given to us by the constitution of this country.  What these judges are doing is recognizing that gay citizen’s have the same rights that all other citizens have. 

These judges have been unable to find a legally supported reason why gay people should continue to be treated differently.  They may seem like radical activist judges.  However, they are behaving no different than judges have behaved for centuries - applying the law and its principals to new facts.

Our Country does not have a law for every possible scenario therefore our legal system allows for judges to apply law and its principals to new facts.   And yes this creates new law and standards.  And that is how we got rid of slavery, allowed women to vote and changed the voting age.

Regardless of how I personally feel about healthcare and the ruling I am glad to see the judiciary is doing its job. The judiciary is making sure that government is not infringing on individuals rights even to the extent of declaring certain laws unconstitutional.

Next time you find yourself disagreeing with a judge’s decision ask yourself is she applying principals of law to new facts? And most likely you will have to say yes.  Then instead of calling her an activist judge find joy in the fact that we live in a country where judges have the freedom to apply the law to new facts.   This ensures a vibrant and constant growing legal system and more importantly an ever more inclusive democracy.

I love Discord

Why I <3 dis·cord
1.lack of concord or harmony between persons or things: marital discord. 2.disagreement; difference of opinion. 3.strife; dispute; war.

Now that is a weird headline, and what is worse the implication is downright scary.

Yes the word has negative connotation and it is understandable that anyone in their right mind would want to stay away from discord. But in our effort to distance ourselves from war and strife we may be losing much more than we realize.

While the ideas presented here apply to just about any part of our lives and society at large I write this with our current political atmosphere in mind. And more specifically what inspires this writing is the recent decision by the board for the American Conservative Union which voted to deny GOProud the opportunity to co-sponsor the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. This to me singles and highlights a very dangerous attitude which seems to be taking hold in American politics. Namely - our way of thinking is the right way and we will not allow or tolerate disagreement.

I have added Mr. Barron, Chairman of the Board at GOproud to my friends list on facebook. Recently I criticized his position on an issue on his wall. In response I received what seemed like logical critique - if you don't like what he has to say why are you his friend? My answer: because I believe in the value of disagreement, I <3 discord.

What is the value of disagreement? First let us look at two possible consequences to complete agreement and harmony. For one one we will end up with a homogeneous mind set. That means that what is believed to to be true shall not be questioned. And any new thought and or information that may shape and yes even change perceived truth will not be allowed. The result of this will be an unchanging mind set. This is extremely dangerous because the key to growth is change.

Growth requires change, and change creates growth. Examples of this in our history are extremely obvious yet we seem to forget them and more importantly forget the immeasurable value that change has awarded our society.

Had someone not challenged the then conventional truth that the earth was flat we may have never discovered America. Had someone never challenged the conventional (and even Biblical supported) concept that slavery was the norm we would continue to treat our fellow humans as less than and ended the most extremely harmful actions taken by our society. Had someone not challenged the truth of the day that women are as capable as men we would have a society that would be lacking the benefits of women in leadership. These examples are extremely simplistic yet if one takes time to analyze and study them it will be life changing to realize the power of change and discord.

When the above mentioned ideas were first proposed they were extremely unpopular. Some were imprisoned and others had to die for daring to go against the norm.

The current mind set, and yes I will be specific that of the conservative movement seems to be that of “our way or no way”. They subscribe to the notion that “our way of life, our moral code and our political opinion is the right one and opposing it means that you are wrong and unwelcome in the discussion”.

To them I say take a look at what you are proposing and I don't mean the ideas you are proposing, I mean the philosophy you are proposing. And then understand the logical consequences of of your concept taking further control of the political discussion. It stands to reason that the result will be that individuals and organizations will either have to fall in line with your view or fall out. Therefore we will end up with either a homogeneous society which will limit growth. Or we will end up with a society of one (or few) since those who do not agree with your view will be cast aside, or worse.

I am Chris Barron’s friend on facebook, because he thinks radically differently than I do. Not that I may agree with him 100% of the time. And not to get him to agree with my opinion or point of view. But rather so that his point of view added to my view and life experience may bring me to a greater truth. And that is the true value of discord.