Shoot First, Ask Questions Never.

After the Newtown School Shooting, at Sandy Hook Elementary school, I was sure our nation had reached a tipping point, when it came to seeking stronger, more effective gun control measures. The national discussion was alive with references to Assault Weapon bans, stringent background and mental health checks, stricter regulation of ammunition; Furthermore, all of this was coming from both sides of the political theater in Washington, making it seem like a political possibility in our near future. Then the NRA came along and started frothing at the mouth, like a rabid dog about how Obama wants to take their guns, and we should have armed guards in every school.


The NRA went a step further and began proposing more guns on the streets as a way to deter future gun violence. My first reaction is, Are you!@#$% Insane! People in general, here in the United States are unstable enough as it is, and you propose arming more of them? We've seen what less restrictive gun laws produce, look at Florida and the stand your ground law. First Trayvon Martin is murdered, for walking home from the store with an iced tea and a bag of skittles. Next you have studies done by Texas A&M, which shows how Homicides have increased in Florida with the implementation of Stand Your Ground, due to the fact altercations, which normally would have been handled in other ways, are quickly escalating into homicides. 


So my question is, why put more guns in the hands of people? What rational reason could there be to arm more people who will then be in a position to resort to lethal force, whereas they may have avoided confrontation altogether without the gun. Look at Michael Dunn as the perfect example; a group of teenagers were listening to music in their car, at a gas station when Mr. Dunn confronts the teens telling them to turn down the loud music. He then walks back to his car, grabs a gun and fires eight shots into the teen's car killing one of them. He claims it was self-defense, but how would someone need to defend themselves from loud music by murdering a teenager? Isn't this what police are for, to call and report issues such as noise complaints? Wouldn't it have been prudent for Mr. Dunn to have called the police, than to have shot up a car over a loud stereo? I think we can agree the answer is obvious here, but this is a direct example of what happens when more people have guns and laws are loosened to enable people to use those weapons more freely. A further example is Michael Jock, a resident of Petersburg, Florida who shot another customer waiting in line at a pizzeria. According to witnesses, Jock grew upset over the customers complaints regarding the speed of service, an altercation ensued, leading to shoving between the two, with Jock pulling out a revolver and killing the victim.


All it takes is a google search to find hundreds of similar incidents all over the country. As a society, we have gone from an enlightened stage, where we solve differences and conflicts through peaceful negotiation, to a stage where lethal force is now an acceptable first step in conflict resolution. Either our society has completely lost it or civilization is about to completely come apart at the seams, or there is something seriously wrong with these types of laws, as well as the people who staunchly defend them. When I was a kid I was taught, don't hit. As I got older, I was taught don't steal, don't lie, don't fight. Now I see our society, defend thieves, by enabling Wall Street Banks and Corporate Conglomerates to loot the Federal Treasury and our tax dollars. We defend and encourage lying, by voting in the same politicians who praise out of the left side of their mouth, the same things they condemn out the right side. People in our society approach conflict resolution now as an all or nothing game, where anything goes so long as I win. Arming more people, will inevitably lead to more homicides, by people who will resort to lethal force for a myriad of reasons, where they may have avoided conflict altogether before. 


Putting more armed people in our society, such as; Guards, Police, or Security, will only further serve to raise the anxiety level of most people who feel we are moving further toward a police state, encouraging them to have even itchier trigger fingers. Police, who are already suspicious and jumpy would be quicker to pull a weapon and use it, knowing more people will be carrying firearms with such policies. Rent-a-cops who have very little power, would have the ability to shoot first, ask questions later, turning a Police Academy reject, into a want to-be Dirty Harry. 


Imagine an armed guard at a school, who encounters two kids having a fistfight. This wasn't completely uncommon when I was in school. Kids sometimes resorted to fights, it is a part of growing up and learning appropriate behaviors. Now take someone who is armed, who is supposed to be there to protect the kids. They could be an off duty, or even an on duty cop, private security, or even an armed Janitor, as the NRA recently suggested. This person has the ability to bring a lethal weapon into the picture, turning a normal childhood altercation, into a crime scene. High-strung rent-a-cops, have already proven to be a liability with Tasers, if you look at various news articles. From Seventy-year-old grandmothers, to Six-year-old children, we can't trust security officials with appropriate use of Tasers, let alone weapons around our children.  


I don't see the solution laying with more guns on the streets and in the hands of the general public. This would be a recipe for disaster, and has already proven to be destructive and counterproductive in those areas where the laws reflect this approach. The fact a national organization like the National Rifle Association proposes these types of backward policies, and they are supported by Millions in the United States, says a lot about the moral standing of our society today. People who oppose Gay Rights, Claim to Support Life, and use Christian ideological principles to justify their own moral behavior, are the same people who support the Freedom to shoot first, support the use of lethal force first via Stand Your Ground laws, and lord their moral superiority over others. Again, I am amazed at the level of hypocrisy these people show and how far detached these people really are from the teachings of Jesus.


I'm not a Christian, but it doesn't take a Christian to recognize a Jesus from the Bible would not support lethal force first, would not support a political party who acts in direct contradiction to his teachings; helping the poor, being humble, turning the other cheek. Maybe I'm wrong, as I said I'm not a Christian, so I don't know Jesus the way Christians do. My point is, Conservatives and Evangelicals who make up the bulk of the NRA and their supporters, need to do some soul searching while their holding their open carry rally's, and demonizing those of us in society who are actually trying to make a positive difference on the issue of Gun Violence. 


We need more rational, clear thinking heads to combat the problem; people who are willing to sit down, compromise and come up with solutions, which are in the best interests of the general public. People who refuse to compromise, who want to emotionally knee-jerk, or who are incapable of looking beyond partisan divides need to be dealt with by our society. We need to stand up to these people and shame them back under their rocks, into the shadows where they belong, because they are doing more harm to our society than guns ever could. The only way to solve this problem is by working together as a society.                                                                                                                                                    

Our World, Our Decision.

I'm starting to think the human race is mentally deficient, especially after the recent gun violence and listening to both extremes prattle on about how the Gun Control issue needs to be either all or nothing. I responded to comments last night, regarding an earlier article I wrote titled, Gun Control Issue for the Masses, where I broke the issue down, addressed issues on both sides of the debate, and offered common sense, middle ground solutions to some of the problems. The responses I got, were completely off the wall, rants about; how I wanted to ban guns, assault weapons are merely cosmetic, people shouldn't need to be licensed to carry, people should be allowed to have the same level of weaponry as our military, and on, and on.... It was absolutely knee jerk, emotional, irrational, insanity.


This is a problem people, we've all let the extreme, fringe elements on both sides of the ideological divide gain to loud of a voice in the public sphere. We don't do enough to shame the craziest of the fringe back under their little rocks, instead giving them cameras or microphones and we parade them in public for "entertainment". Unfortunately, our society is also made up of sheep, who are very content to be led around without having to use a whole lot of brain power. This makes for a very dangerous combination. 


I think people who say we should ban all guns, are just as crazy as people who say we shouldn't ban anything. The fact our society condones this type of extremist behavior and entertains it, makes me question the mental health of our society in general. How can our species possibly survive, and thrive going forward, if we allow every single issue to devolve into a comparison of extremes, without any hope of rational, common sense compromises to fix problems? I lay the blame directly at the feet of each one of us, myself included, for not doing enough to put people in their place when they sound like crazy bastards. We don't hold people accountable for the things they say, we don't hold politicians accountable for the things they do, and we don't hold the entertainment industry accountable for their shameless promotion of garbage, which contributes to the divides in our society. 


There is a reason I named this Blog, Misanthropic Dissonance, because I love the human race and want so much to see it progress, succeed and grow, but at the same time I absolutely loath our society and what are have steadily become: A civilization of mindless, blind, sheep, following authority, following ideology, with a complete lack of critical thinking ability or common sense. It's disgusting to see people blindly follow, based on knee jerk, emotional reactivity, when people are capable of so much more. It makes me worry for the future of the human race, when our society immediately goes to the extremes of an issue, as important as gun violence, ensuring the problem will go on unfixed. I worry about whether my own children will have a viable future to live and prosper in, whether their children will have a future. We have become such a selfish society, with various demographics in our culture wanting more, or are not willing to compromise or coexist peacefully. 


This type of extremist behavior only serves to push our entire society to the brink of collapse. Do you really think if that happened, the common, everyday people would benefit? Of course not. The wealthy elite would be fine in their swanky mansions, or fortified compounds, while the rest of society would turn cut-throat just to survive. There is no downside to societal collapse for people who have everything, they would simply have more to rule over, while the rest of us were busy fighting to get by. Why is it, do you think our politicians refuse to solve issues, which could be resolved through compromising and common sense solutions? People need to wake up and break from this constant conditioning, the media and our society overall imposes on us, to submit to authority, to conform, to obey. Start questioning things; Why is bullying allowed, why do we condone hazing, why do look the other way when things are happening we know are wrong, why don't we stand up and demand for things to change, why do we assume we have no power, why do we let others tell us what to think, how to look, what to feel, how to behave, why don't we take personal control over our own lives? 


I am continually amazed at how few people in our society actually break from the pack and do stand up as a unique individuals to affect change. It is an encouraging thing to see, but also depressing to notice how the vast majority of people are completely blind to what is going on around them. I wouldn't even know where to begin when it comes to solving this particular problem. I would love to offer solutions, but this is one of those times when you can't help others, they need to help themselves. People have to be willing to open their own eyes and look around, question reality and decide to walk their own path, rather than follow the herd. People have to be willing to open their ears and their minds to the world, and accept the uncomfortable truths about life, existence, nature, and about themselves. Eventually all of us will die, and the only thing that will be remembered of us, is the impact we've had on those around us. Eventually they will die, and after enough time, we will be forgotten from history entirely. Knowing this fact, is it then worth holding on to an extremist position, and slowing the growth and progress of the human race in the process? What good could it possibly accomplish? What kind of legacy will such extremist thinking leave on future generations who will look back and wonder how we were able to even function as a society?



We have one shot to get it right in this life. We could continue condoning selfish, greedy behavior in our fellow human beings, who are only concerned with themselves, or we could strive to make the world different. Our legacy, though one day forgotten, has the potential to contribute to the progress and growth of the human race into something much better. It is up to each one of us to decide how that legacy will affect the course of our species. Will it enable growth and progress toward something better, or restrict our progress and hold us back from becoming what we can imagine of ourselves.

I've Decided You CAN Get Married - Updated

In the 1990's, the United States congress passed the Defense of Marriage act, attempting to stop gay marriage from being legalized by the courts. This law was responsible for making marriage other than between one man and one woman illegal, and unrecognizable under federal law. It went further to remove the recognition of states who chose to legalize same-sex marriage, or civil unions and their benefits to same-sex couples. The Defense of Marriage act was and has been unchallenged for much of the last decade, until recently.

Through court decisions, states like Massachusetts and Utah have overturned opposition to Gay Marriage, ruling it unconstitutional to bar through law due to its violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the constitution. Other Federal court systems have begun weighing in on the issue and appear to lean toward Marriage Equality. The first reason for this is simple; Marriage is a civil and secular institution. You need a license to marry in all 50 states, meaning marriage is enshrined through law in the legal system and does not require any religion to exist. While religious marriage does exist it is not necessarily a part of or a parcel to civil marriage. Atheists and other non-religious people are free to marry, through a Justice of the Peace, or District Magistrate in all states. Since each state regulates the distribution of marriage licenses, this is a further example of the separation between religious marriage and civil marriage.

These attempts to restrict marriage to one man, one woman unions has met with uncertainty by Federal courts who cite the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, "No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"; furthermore, it goes on to state, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."(US, 1868). Courts have held this to mean the civil privileges of marriage are not to be denied, and states such as California are not allowed to bar same-sex couples from marriage rights. The Massachusetts Supreme court ruling in 2006, as well as the recent Federal judge ruling in California both support the legality of same-sex marriage as a right.

Our founding fathers also supported a right to happiness, by enshrining this phrase in the preamble of our countries constitution; the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gay Americans like all Americans have the fundamental right to select their own partners in life, regardless of gender. This is a concept sometimes forgotten by religious ideologues who wish to push their religious beliefs on others; they commonly use religious arguments to justify their legal opposition to same-sex marriage. These arguments often lack substance and are merely references to religious texts written thousands of years ago.

Christianity in the United States has taken up the torch of this new crusade in particular, as their texts and teachings are the common bell weather arguments about the low morality of homosexuality and homosexuals. They quote the scriptures such as Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. While this may exist in the Christian Bible as text, it is often cited by those who commonly ignore or overlook other verses located before and after it, which include; selling a daughter into slavery, the condemnation of eating shellfish, or wearing clothes made with different types of cloth. This ability to selectively choose verses in Leviticus, which only suit your ideological viewpoint, represents an improper appeal to authority; furthermore not all people are Christian, and appealing to Christian Biblical authority implies one would have to believe in Christianity. As non-Christians will attest, Christian ideology is not a tangible authority in a logical argument.

Doctor Halsall at Fordham University has studied Native American Societies and LGBT history in particular, and teaches on the subject. This research has uncovered acceptance of homosexuality as a natural occurrence by some Native American Societies. It was even possible for some tribes to allow children to choose their own gender, with full integration into the tribe as a member of their chosen gender(Halsall, 2007). This forward-thinking viewpoint is important because it shows our society, which is a melting pot of culture and diversity, has the ability to overcome Puritanical Christian thinking.

In fact many of the evangelical Christian moral arguments against Gay Marriage echo the same arguments against Interracial Marriage in the 1950's and 1960's. During the civil rights era, many white Americans felt interracial marriage should be outlawed as well; that it was also an abomination. As a society even today there are times when interracial couples encounter resistance in society. These moral arguments are typically overturned with time, as people become more educated and aware of diverse cultures. Christianity may currently stand against Gay Marriage, although Pagan's and Wiccan's completely embrace this natural diversity. The moral argument really then becomes an argument of religious viewpoints, and because of freedom of religion in America, Christianity does not have a monopoly on the law.

This doesn't stop Christian Opposition, as well as some secular opposition to same sex marriage from making the claims that Homosexuality is unnatural. You hear the common phrase Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve; however, research into this subject does not concur with that statement. Dr. Kinsey of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction pioneered studies into human sexual behavior. What Kinsey found was that individuals fall along a continuum of sexuality ranging from complete heterosexuality, to complete homosexuality. This theory became the Kinsey Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale and is still used today.

The Kinsey scale is based on the concept that all human beings fall along a continuum of sexual orientation, from extreme heterosexuality, to extreme homosexuality. Kinsey's scale is used to help explain the phenomena of Bisexuality, as well the ability of some straight and gay individuals to be able to change sexual orientation roles. This theory does not address the larger issue of genetic factors, which cause homosexuality; however, Kinsey's research suggests that both Adam and Eve, as well as Adam and Steve are equally plausible and normal(Kinsey, 2010).

Research has also been done in the animal kingdom to try and understand the nature of sexuality. The University of California did a comprehensive study on several different species of animal's which showed the integration of same-sex behavior into their respective societies. Same-sex behavior was not only a universal trait in the animal kingdom, scientists also theorize it may be a product of Natural Selection. Male Bottle Nose Dolphins, for example, engage in same sex interactions to facilitate group bonding. The female Laysan Albatross can remain pair bonded for life to another female and cooperatively rear offspring. These examples are not indicative of a lifestyle choice, but serve a fundamental purpose within their respective populations. In order to believe that homosexuality is an unnatural lifestyle choice, we are forced to also believe that animals have the cognitive ability to make that choice(Riverside, 2009). Other studies done on the Bonobo Ape's of Africa were documented displaying bisexual behavior, across 90% of the entire species. This is important, due to the Nature arguments used against homosexual behavior, claiming homosexual behavior is unnatural. In this instance we have an entire natural species, who exhibit sexual behavior resembling Kinsey's theory.

The reason why this becomes important with regard to Kinsey's theory, is due to the lack of social stigma associated with homosexual behavior, among the Bonobo Ape's, as well as the natural acceptance of such behavior by the species overall. In contrast it could be argued, Human beings create stigma's on homosexuality and demonize the behavior; thereby, forcing people the majority of people through peer pressure to choose one orientation or the other, when most people may naturally fall somewhere in the middle.

This is important to all of us because we each take for granted our own liberties in the United States. We forget we have the right to choose our life partner, or the government has a duty to apply laws and privileges equally to us all. We have forgotten that religiously backed laws create a religious infringement on civil liberties. Not everyone is a Christian, therefore all laws based on Christianity, force others to follow Christian beliefs. The government does not have a role or the authority to interfere in the relationships of private, consenting, loving, adults. It is also constitutionally bound against allowing any one religious institution from dictating law to the rest of the country. If Christians had the authority to regulate marriage as they saw fit, where would the line be; Gay marriage, or perhaps only marriages of Christians. Would pagan handfastings become illegal as well? This isn't a slippery slope, but a very real possibility when you give control of the legal system over to any one religious belief system.

If my religious beliefs were responsible for creating laws and I decided to target marriages and relationships my beliefs did not agree with, there would be outrage and condemnation from everyone who is not of my faith. It would also be an infringement on the rights of everyone. This is what has happened to the issue of same-sex marriage in America. A civil, secular, legal construct which stands separate from religion is regulated by people who apply their own religious ideological standard to the legal system. There are talk of public opinion polls and how public opinion is split on the issue, just as it was during the civil rights era with interracial marriage. This does not mean individual rights should be subject to popular approval; popular approval today could mean popular disapproval tomorrow when someone Else's rights are at stake.

If one day it is decided that people over 30 are not allowed to marry, because they are moving beyond their peak years of reproduction and as a society we don't want to encourage older parenting, as well as scientific evidence which shows older parents have a higher rate of birth defects with their offspring, would we as a society accept these imposed social rules? No, most likely we would not allow our society to dictate terms to us, which interfere with the free exercise of our rights; yet this is what happens each day Gay Marriage is held back and marriage equality is not achieved. If complete strangers who are not a part of your life are affected by your private life, and are enabled through law to make different rules for you, you in effect have no rights. Civil Marriage rights are for everyone and are not subject to popular approval under the constitution, perhaps our society needs to catch up with the constitution on this issue.

 ~ Updated 6/29/15

On June 26th, 2015 The United States Supreme Court upheld that bans on Same-sex marriages were unconstitutional, thereby making Marriage Equality the law of the land. Though many of us were skeptical of seeing Marriage Equality achieved within our lifetime, and the very real possibility exists of a Federal Constitutional Amendment being pushed in the future should the GOP gain even more power, for right now, in this moment we can say Marriage Equality has arrived. 

References

Bible, (2010). King James Bible [Electronic Edition]. (Leviticus 18:22), Retrieved from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=407964

Halsall, P. (2007). People with a history: an online guide to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans history [Online Edition]. (Native American Societies), Retrieved from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-am.html#c17

Kinsey, (2009, March). Kinsey's heterosexual-homosexual rating scale. Retrieved October  12, 2010, from The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction Web site: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-hhscale.html#what

Owens, J (2004, July, 23). Homosexual activity among animals stirs debate. National Geographic News, Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

University of California - Riverside (2009, June 17). Same-sex Behavior Seen In Nearly All Animals, Review Finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm

US Government. (1868). 14th amendment. United States Constitution

The Equal Rights Amendment

What is the Equal Rights Amendment? To put it simply, it is the natural extension of equal rights based on sex, similar to the extension of equal rights based on race. Doesn't sound very controversial, I mean women today are allowed to own property, have careers, participate in government, vote, etc. Why then would we need the Equal Rights Amendment? A not so long time ago, we were not allowed to vote, were excluded from participating in government, even today glass ceilings exist for women in society. We make up a little over half the population, but have never held either the office of President or Vice-President. It has only been in the last 30 years, women have been confirmed to the Supreme Court, and it wasn't until 2007 before a woman was voted in as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

When a man runs for political office, no one considers how his gender will affect his ability to represent the people; however, a woman is scrutinized for a myriad of reasons, unrelated to her ability to do the job, but directly related to the fact she is a woman. Recently in Iowa, an all-male Supreme Court ruling stated, a dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant he found irresistibly attractive. So apparently, through no fault of your own, if your boss can't control themselves you can be legally fired. It is for situations like this, which are really happening all across the country, the Equal Rights Amendment was originally proposed.

Many women today take for granted the way women are treated in our society today. I am engaged to a woman who doesn't vote, and I remind her frequently how we didn't have that right for 144 years; furthermore, it took 30 years for the Amendment to be Ratified after it was first introduced. This shows our society has a long and sordid history of discriminating against women. Unfortunately, the only way we will secure rights is by fighting for them.

Currently, a White House petition is available asking President Obama to Support and Advance the Equal Rights Amendment, originally introduced in 1972. The Amendment fell 3 states shy of ratification by 1982, when the deadline expired; however, legal experts have determined this deadline could be further extended to allow for additional ratification's. This approach has been termed, the three-state strategy.

The three-state strategy is a legal argument, stating the earlier 35 state ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment remain valid, and only 3 more states are needed for ratification, without congress resubmitting the Amendment to state lawmakers. Rescission's of earlier Ratification's were found to be unconstitutional. The deadline expiration is not without it's own precedent. Previously expired deadlines have been extended by congress on prior Amendments, as an example The Twenty-Seventh Amendment took more than 202 years to ratify.

The hope with this petition has been for President Obama to lobby congress and the states to extend the deadline or remove it, and to advocate for Ratification. Given the Election of 2012, the support women voters gave to the Obama Campaign, as well as the Presidents own record on woman's issues, with his support it is possible the Equal Rights Amendment will be successful. Maybe one day, in the distant future if the human race has not destroyed itself, issues such as equal rights will be a non-issue as humanity will assume that is the way it has always been. Until then, the only way we will secure equality is by fighting for it, every single day!