Hanging By a Thread

Love Wins {Marriage Equality in MN}

And then there were 12

I had just parked at the library. The boys had unbuckled and were bouncing around the van, ready to go pick out some books. I decided to check Facebook one more time to see if the MN Senate had voted yet.

The first five or so posts that met me as I scrolled through my stream immediately told me that Minnesota had indeed passed the Marriage Equality Bill (which Gov. Dayton will sign today), allowing for gay marriage in our state.

I happily announced it to the boys. I explained once again what that meant for the people of our state. And tears flowed from my eyes.

The boys said, "Why are you crying? You're already married." They asked me, "Why are you sad?"

I explained that they were tears of joy. And yes, while their dad and I are already married, this law will mean that many loving, devoted couples can now be married, as we are, if they so choose.

I couldn't help but think of our friends and family who are affected by laws that discriminate against them and their loved ones. I couldn't help but think of all of those who feel liberated and empowered by this new law. I couldn't help but think of the future generations and what this law will mean to them.

Marital Status

This law has nothing to do with sexual relations. This law is about the basic rights of a married couple both in life and in death. This law is about giving adults of sound mind, regardless of sexual orientation, the right to marry whom they choose. This law is about giving couples basic rights regarding insurance coverage, hospital visits and medical information, testamentary rights, tax status and deductions, and more. This is a legal distinction; this is a human rights distinction.

People can live together, sleep together and spend their lives together without a marriage certificate, so long as they choose to and are of legal age. That wouldn't change whether this law had passed or not.

In addition to the legal rights afforded by this law, what changes is the legitimacy of these relationships from the perspective of others. The level of commitment won't change for the couple who has devoted the last 20 years to each other, regardless of legal marital status, but it will change the way the world views them. They will be married; they will be connected in the eyes of the state; they will be one unit for all to know and recognize.

Marital Injustices

It wasn't that long ago that the issue being discussed and legislated was marriage between a white person and a person of color.

In Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case that made inter-racial marriage possible in every state, Justice Earl Warren wrote, "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Yes, Justice Warren was specifically discussing racial discrimination, but in so many ways, we're talking about the same thing. Opponents of Marriage equality among gay couples fear that it will ruin the institution of marriage; that it will hurt our kids and damage our country's morals. Opponents of inter-racial marriages made of a lot of those same arguments.

The Scoop

I'll tell you what hurts our kids and damages our country... It's hate and fear and closed hearts and minds. It's the idea that one group knows what's best for another group. It's failing to love each other regardless of our differences and our similarities and in spite of them.

And so it was with tears of joy and gratitude and pride that my Christian, hetero-sexual, happily-married-to-a-man, heart swelled with rainbow-colored pride when I heard the news that MN had just become the 12^th state in the U.S. giving all adult couples the option of marriage! Thank you, MN Legislators!

I will respect your opinion, even if I don't agree. Will you respect mine? Over and out...

Anna

Sharing is Right, Except When it’s Lies.... {Ferreting Out the “Rats”}

Being Lead Astray

If you see it on Facebook it must be true, right? I mean no one would spread false or misleading or misattributed information on the Internet, and certainly not on Facebook. Those people are my friends, right?

Don't bet on it. Uh, I mean the truth part, not the friend part.

I've noticed a disturbing trend on Facebook of information being recklessly passed from friend to friend at lightning speed without regard to truth or accuracy. If it hits a nerve, is witty or cute or grabs your attention, it gets shared on Facebook. If it has a political implication or is satirical or jaw-dropping, you can bet this information being shared.

Perhaps I'm more skeptical or question more than the average Joe, but I tend to read the quotes and information, and then check it for sources online.

Generally, if it smells like rat and looks like a rat, by Jove, it's a rat. And I have yet to find one that isn't incorrect or misattributed that gave off such an odor.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

Say What?

Picture a distinguished painting of George Washington, our 1^st President and across the image this quote:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which include their own government. ~George Washington"

A few weeks ago, this quote with varying images of George Washington was repeatedly posted/shared on Facebook. It didn't bode well with me. So, I copied it and went in search of the truth.

Here's what I found:

According to Wikipedia, Washington actually said this at the First Annual Address to both Houses of Congress in January of 1790.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies. ~ George Washington"

The highly circulated {mis}quote is categorized as a "spurious attribution" on Wikipedia. That is to say that it's not only misattributed to Washington, but no one else said it either. In fact, it's the product of someone {clearly a gun-rights enthusiast, in this case} taking part of a real quote and fabricating the rest to support his or her particular interest.

Snake Oil

This week I saw one on WD-40 that caught my eye. It was interesting; explaining how WD-40 got its name and how it was created and all the ways you could use it. The very end revealed the main ingredient in this lubricant was surprisingly fish oil.

Well, I thought this smelled a little "fishy" {Forgive me; it was too easy} so I looked it up.

According to Snopes.com this bit has been circulating since 2006. Snopes reports that they asked the makers of WD-40 about the extensive list of uses. The manufacturer removed a number of the purported 45 uses outlined in the bogus email/post.

And as for the fish oil, it's a rumor. While there is no ingredient list on the can, there is an MSDA sheet which indicates that WD-40 is petroleum based.

The Scoop

So, next time you spy something on Facebook being shared by your friends, check it out first. You might be spreading gossip. Or worse you could be libeling someone or infringing on someone's copyright.

The moral of the story:

Before you share, think to yourself,

1. Does this smell like rat?
2. Does it look like a rat?

If the answers to these questions are "Yes" or "My opinion is too jaded to know" then do a quick search and see if it is truly a rat. The "interwebs" won't lead you astray {well, if you use good judgment}, even when your friends do. Over and out...

*It would stand to reason that the photo above would be George Washington since I discussed him above, right? But, did anyone notice that I was leading you astray? It's not George, it's John Adams. I happended to have a book on him, but couldn't find a photo of Washington in my home. I figured that it could prove my point about leading astray.

Anna

Sticky Messes: Good Guys v. Bad Guys {Biggest Gun Wins}

Cleaning up Messes

My kids are really good at making huge messes. They don't mean to; they're just busy playing, creating some playscape or making confetti or trying to help by pouring their own juice or milk.

The result is something sticky covering the floor, splattered on the counter and cabinets and inevitably on the boys themselves, bits of paper everywhere, pillows, blankets and stuffed animals scattered throughout the house, draping over this or that, pulling down lamps and picture frames.

I know I should make them clean up these disaster zones, but I know from experience generally their version of cleaning up a mess only results in bigger messes that make me a steaming, angry, stressed out mom; which is another type of mess altogether.

So, I banish them from the desecrated area, and I clean up the mess. They do have to clean up toys scattered about; it's just these sticky, dirty, destructive messes that I take over.

Yes, I know. You're shaking your head and thinking. "That's the way to spoil them and make them think they can get away with anything."

Perhaps, but it keeps me sane, and avoids the chance of a headline like this, "Mom loses mind, runs screaming from home, never to be heard from again after sons attempt to clean up spilled apple juice with down comforter, only to rip seam and allow all the feathers to float through house, adhering to all sticky surfaces covered in apple juice, including the boys and a giant dog."

Sometimes it's just better to step in and take control of a smaller, still fixable mess before it becomes a giant, sticky, slippery slope heading straight down the tubes.

Guns in Schools

A few days before Christmas I happened to see a newspaper headline, "NRA leader urges armed guards in every U.S. school." Surely not.

I read more. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," says NRA executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre. Hmmmm.

While I agree that gunmen on rampages who seem to all too often end up in schools of some level is a definite problem, I don't agree that throwing more guns into the mix is the answer.

The NRA's current plan is like standing to the side and watching my sons spill a gallon of apple juice all over the counter, the floor, the cabinets and themselves as they attempt to pour a small amount into a child-sized cup, then letting them clean it up with the socks on their feet and whatever else they can find to sop of the sticky liquid, leaving the residue behind to collect hair and dust and dirt, turning the whole thing into a filthy mess.

That doesn't solve or teach anything.

I realize that there are a number of schools in large cities that already have trained armed guards/off-duty police officers patrolling the halls, approximately one-third of public schools or 23,000 schools to be precise. I acknowledge this is necessary to keep the students in those schools safe, but I do not find this statistic to be an acceptable standard for schools.

Good Guys v. Bad Guys

This figure alone speaks volumes about the state of our country and the culture we live in. It saddens me to no end. But this proposed "solution" from the NRA enrages my faculties, breaks my heart and frightens me.

More guns, especially guns of the caliber and capacity that match those that the "bad guys" have access to do not belong in our schools. What lesson does this teach? The "bad guys" have big guns; well, the "good guys" will just get bigger guns.

Where does it end? Why stop at schools? How about movie theaters, churches, all government buildings, federal, state and city, malls, parks, the grocery store, libraries, parking garages, and every other public building? Perhaps it should be mandatory that every household owns an assault rifle. That ought to stop the "bad guys."

Of course, if we're all running around with guns all the time, that might make it difficult to tell the "bad guys" from the "good guys." Then what would the NRA propose?

Better Laws

I don't have all the answers, but I feel certain that adding more high powered weapons to our warped society is NOT the answer.

I am not advocating for all guns to be ripped from lawful gun owners' tight grasp. But I do support bans on assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition clips; weapons that belong only on a battlefield, if anywhere at all; weapons that can wipe out a great number of people in a few short seconds; weapons capable of ripping gaping holes in bodies and exploding through flesh and vital organs.

Weapons of this nature go far beyond hunting and "protecting" your home and family. If you oppose this type of ban, please explain to me the need for such devastating weapons.

Of course, bans are not the only aspects to be considered. Historically, horrible killing sprees that have taken place in schools, malls, churches, offices and theaters are carried out by people who have a mental illness of some sort. Therefore, mental illnesses, detection and treatment are also issues to be considered.

The Scoop

Call me naïve, but I don't want to live in a world where "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." And I just don't think we have to live in such a world...if we wake up and proactively start dealing with this issue.

The current gun laws are not adequate. We don't necessarily need more laws, but better laws. I challenge our lawmakers to disregard the powerful, $12-billion-dollar-a-year gun industry and its puppet, the NRA and find a way that protects our citizens' safety and rights. Over and out...

Anna

Love: This Little Light of Mine, I’m Gonna Let it Shine

LOVE

True LOVE

Real LOVE

Deep as an Ocean

All encompassing

Love does not conform; Love won't be stopped by laws

LOVE does not Discriminate; LOVE understands; LOVE Forgives

LOVE Survives

Love Heals

Love Saves

God is

LOVE

As we near this year's very heated, passionate election day, please take a moment to remember to Love your neighbors, your friends, your family regardless of what they believe or advocate for or who they vote for or whose signs are firmly planted in their yards.

Love is the most important thing we have. Live by example; let your love be a roaring fire that shines out for the world to see; don't hide it under a bushel. Love is not shameful. Over and out...

Anna

Not Jen, not Jenny...just Jennifer {She was my Friend}

1Ls

I got there early so that I could watch the others come in. These others would be my classmates for the next three years; I wanted to guess which ones would be my friends.

One girl came in and sat a few rows down from me. She looked nervous; as I imagine we all did. I instantly liked her though, and I decided she would be my friend.

In law school the 1^st year class is divided into sections, and the students in those sections are rarely apart, having the exact same schedule for the whole first year. Each section becomes very close for the whole of law school. When my section number was called to go to the front of the auditorium to get our schedules, etc. this girl, this would-be friend of mine, got up too.

Inseparable Friends

Little did I know then that not only would she be my friend, she would be my very best friend for those very intense years of our lives. We were inseparable; we studied together, laughed together, cried together, encouraged each other, supported each other, and laughed and cried some more. Her friendship is one of the reasons I got through law school.

I once got her a throw pillow for Christmas that said, "It's the friends you can call at 2 a.m. that really matter" and that's how it was with us.

But then, we graduated, took and passed the bar, and I went off to a Judicial Clerkship in IA and she began her career as a family law attorney in OK. I thought of her often, saw her once and spoke on the phone a couple of times. There were many times I started to pick up the phone and try to find her number and call her, but didn't. The distance between the years and our lives made me shy and uncertain; perhaps she never thought of me; perhaps she didn't miss me.

Loss

Last night, I picked up my Oklahoma Bar Journal that I had received sometime last week and started at the back of the volume; for that is where the important information about fellow OK lawyers is printed, the honors, the promotions and the deaths.

As I skimmed through the names, there it was, Jennifer Lee Thompson. The air was sucked out of me for a second, as I quickly flipped the page to be sure I was seeing it correctly. I couldn't read the words properly but my eyes perceptively picked out enough of them to know the awful truth. Jennifer passed away last month.

I'm heartbroken. I haven't seen her or talked to her in about 11 years, but nonetheless she was one of the best friends I have ever had or probably ever will have, even if it was just for those 3 years.

I'm heartbroken that I let all those years stack up thinking that one day I would talk to her; I would see her again. Now, one day will never come.

Being There

Ten days separated our birthdays. We were both sassy, passionate, devoted and determined. We lived just a short drive from each other for those 3 years of law school; it was a drive we each knew well.

I once drove over in the middle night with a cell phone and flashlight in hand after she had called me in tears certain that something or someone was outside her door. I'm not brave in the dark, late at night, or when there is a chance of a prowler seeking to do harm, but her fear made me courageous for her sake; it was a cricket stuck in her door.

The two of us, along with my two cats, huddled under her couch as a tornado ripped through the Oklahoma City area in May of 1999, waiting, listening, praying. We were brave together that time.

When I got married on December 26, 1998, she left her parents' house on Christmas night to stay with me that night before my wedding, knowing I'd be nervous. She did my nails and we laughed the nerves away. On the day of the wedding, she was beside me every minute of the day until I walked down the aisle, again knowing I'd be a nervous wreck. She kept the annoying people away from me, sent her mom to get me lunch and deliver it to the church and held my hand. She was brave for me that time.

One year, when I lamented the fact that my birthday was going to be the worst ever because it was a weekday, Will couldn't drive the 2 hours to see me because he'd be working and I had no plans, Jennifer and another friend hatched a plan sending me on an early morning errand to pick up the other friend and take her to class, even though I didn't have to be in class until hours later, never mind it was my birthday and that I liked to sleep. What I didn't know is that while I was out picking up and dropping off, Jennifer was in my apartment decorating it; it was one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen when I opened my door.

That is true friendship; being there for each other. I wasn't there for her in the end. I am heartbroken.

For years, I've had a foreboding dread of reading those obituary pages, fearing that one day I would find her name listed. Now, I have. I don't know where this feeling came from, but it was something I couldn't shake.

That premonition alone should have been enough for me to pick up the phone, but I didn't. This is a mistake I hope to never make again.

Jennifer, you shall forever be one of my bright spots on my life's canvas. I shed tears for you last night, and I got on my treadmill to run from the pain and sadness I was feeling. But then, as tears streamed down my cheeks, I remembered the time that you fell off your treadmill and how we laughed as you recounted the story to me as I smeared ointment on your bloody knees. Remember how you made me swear I wouldn't tell anyone what had happened to you?

Anna

 *um, the photo. Well, it's circa late 1997, and I was in costume - there's a mask on the top of my head making my hair look like that. Jennifer refused to go in costume - look how pretty she is.

 

Eats, Shoots and Leaves or Eats Shoots and Leaves? {That’s the Debate}

Whose Right to Bear Arms?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That is the 2^nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, as passed by Congress in late 1791.

It was a different time back then. I don't think anyone can argue with that. But that's about all we, as a country, can agree on when it comes to this 27 word sentence.

On Monday, there was another tragic shooting; this one in College Station, Texas. There were 2 people killed and several injured by a disgruntled home owner, as a city constable attempted to serve an eviction notice.

In our world of violence, it would be easy to pass this tragedy off and say, "well, it was only two people….this time." But to those two persons' friends and families, this is the worst news story they have ever heard.

Just a little over a week ago, a man went to a Sikh Temple during Sunday morning worship and opened fire, killing 6 people.

And less than a month ago, a man went into a dark movie theater and killed 12 people.

Of course, in each of these instances, there were people injured, as well.

When does this violence end?

The Governor's Rationale

After the College Station shooting, I read a long, rambling quote from Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, in which stated his argument for people's right to own and carry guns. Here is part of that quote,

"And Texas I will suggest to you by and large a majority of them, a large majority of them believe that law abiding men and women should be able to have their weapons and the criminals are never going to listen to the law, they're always gonna have weapons, whatever source they want, whether they're legal or illegal. And I think it's wise for the people of the state of Texas to be able to defend themselves when there is a law breaker that comes into their midst with a weapon."

I'll concede Perry two points: 1) He's probably right that most Texans feel this way; and 2) criminals are always going to find a way to get a weapon, and they don't care what the laws say.

But I think his reasoning is flawed.

Law Abiding Mass Murderers

If you think back over the years of all the terrible, senseless shootings in our country, you will find that most of these ruthless, selfish murderers had obtained their guns and ammunitions lawfully and were not breaking any laws by owning guns as they, themselves, were not lawbreakers until the very day they took multiple lives during their respective rampages.

The shootings are not committed by gang members, assassins, petty crooks or hardened criminals. Most often, these people are quite intelligent, but delusional or mentally unstable and fueled by hate for certain groups of people. Often these types of people are dismissed as quiet loners or quirky characters, but no one would ever have expected this person to do what he eventually does.

These types know how to go about obtaining guns and ammunitions legally; they plot and plan and wait and stock up. They are people who are protected by the 2^nd Amendment as it is interpreted today.

A Militia State?

Secondly, I'd like to point out that in none of these instances that I am aware of was the assailant shot by a regular Joe who just happened along upon a murderous scene and who happened to be packing heat, taking advantage of his 2^nd Amend. right, as the good governor from Texas would argue might happen if we are allowed to possess and carry guns.

Along that same line, I'm a bit confused by Perry's statement: "And I think it's wise for the people of the state of Texas to be able to defend themselves when there is a law breaker that comes into their midst with a weapon."

Is Perry suggesting that Texas is a militia state? A state where a body of citizens is armed and trained by the state that can take law enforcement into its own hands? Surely not.

Stand Your Ground

Of course things didn't quite work out this way for George Zimmerman of FL when he lawfully owned and carried a gun for protection in a neighborhood that had been repeatedly struck by thieves and home invasions. Zimmerman acted as Captain of the Neighborhood Watch and claims he acted in self defense under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law the night he shot and killed an unarmed young man. And yet, he is now standing trial for his actions.

Stand Your Ground laws do indeed protect those who "use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first." Under these laws, a person could even use deadly force without a duty to retreat, in some cases; and in those cases, these laws would be considered a defense or immunity against criminal charges or civil suits.

However, clearly sometimes a person might make a mistake about when he could legally use his gun and when he is breaking the law himself.

My point is that do we really want people carrying guns everywhere they go and making a split second decision whether what they think they are seeing is really what's going on? I think not, but I know this sentiment is not agreed upon across the board.

The Scoop

The problem is all in the way it was written and passed out to the states and eventually ratified by those states. It's only slightly different than the original version passed by Congress; but the difference is enough to make interpretation a bit dicey.

Here is the way the states' version is written and was subsequently ratified as:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Do you see the difference? It may appear subtle, but it makes a big difference. In fact, it's why there is such a debate over exactly what the right was intended to protect. If only there had been copying machines in 1791.

And lastly, when the 2^nd Amendment was written and passed, guns that could fire off hundreds of explosive rounds in a matter of minutes couldn't even be imagined, much less a machine that would make exact duplications of a piece of legislation. Over and out…

Anna

Inked: Minor Obstacles

Tattoo Collection

I have a small junk drawer in my kitchen. In it you will find a few markers, some twist ties, a variety of small notepads, a few old corks, some outlet covers left over from when there were toddlers in the house, a battery or two, a small screwdriver, myriad other odds and ins and a number of temporary tattoos. This collection of tattoos includes butterflies, animals, Pixar character, pizza joint logos and more.

We've been accumulating this collection for the last 5 years. They've come from Valentine's cards, birthday parties, restaurants, nannies, trick-or-treating, various community events, etc.

My kids love tattoos. I can't remember when it started or where the first tattoo came from, but what I do know is that they quickly figured out how to apply them by themselves & they wear them with great pride; the bigger and more colorful the better.

Allure of Ink

I have never understood the allure of tattoos; whether temporary or permanent. This is certainly something I will never do. The pain alone is enough to stop me. I almost didn't have children solely based on the pain of childbirth. And yet, I find other's tattoos very interesting; the colors, the design, the statements being made. They are pieces of art on living canvasses.

Lately, I've been seeing more and more people with tattoos; many with several tattoos, bright and big and covering large parts of their bodies; people shopping at Target; the baristas at my favorite coffee shop; parents at t-ball games; at the pool. In fact, as I write this, while seated at a coffee shop, a man with tattoos reaching out from his short sleeves, peeking out from his collar and dotting his forearms came in and sat at the table next to mine. I don't know what's responsible for this societal shift, but there appears to have been one.

Protection for Government Interference?

It's fine for an adult who understands and accepts that permanent ink displayed on body parts that may be visible even when dressed from head to toe may not be looked upon favorably in certain professionals, may not always be in vogue and most certainly may not always fit one's personal style and preferences to make that decision to get a permanent tattoo, but how much liberty should a minor have in making this decision?

According to National Conference of State Legislatures, as of December 2011, there were 39 states with laws restricting tattooing minors. Many of these laws include body piercing, as well. Note that I used the word "restricting" not "prohibiting." Many of these laws provide that a minor under 18 is prohibited from getting a tattoo or body piercing unless there is parental consent.

Should it be in the parent's control? Is this an issue of cultural, societal and personal preferences?

Most parents aren't suggesting that their children get inked or pierced or giving in to such requests from their tweens or teens. And yet, if mom and/or dad are covered in tatts or cultural and societal norms aren't mainstream and the parents and/or guardians think it's fine for junior to get a tattoo at age 5 or pierced bellybutton at 15, is that OK?

Or would that be abuse to be reported to child protective services?

Well, in Florida, whose law changed in January 2012, a grandfather with custody of his grandson found himself in hot water when he allowed the 10 year-old to get a tattoo of his initials on his leg; a family tradition.

The FL law had previously allowed minors under 16 to get a tattoo with parental consent. It now restricts minors under 16 from getting tattoos except for medical or dental reasons and minors 16 to 18 are permitted to go forward with the inking with the consent of a parent.

The grandfather lost custody of his grandson based on his decision to allow the tattoo, regardless of the law restricting this action.

Often it's the tattoo artist who gets in gets in trouble with the law, as well as the parent.

The Scoop

I'm not a fan of tattoos; permanent or temporary. And I hope my boys never decide they should mark their skin with ink of the permanent kind, at least. But if they do want to get a tattoo or pierce through their skin and add ornamentation of some sort, I can guarantee you it will not be while they are minors and are required to seek parental consent.

As for the law, there may be those who see this as government interference into the rights of parents to make decisions for their kids, but I see it as protection from parents who may not quite appreciate the full repercussions of allowing minors to make body modifications at such a young age. Over and out...

Anna

On Fried Chicken and Casting Stones

Framing the Issue

This has NOTHING to do with fried chicken.

I have been mulling this over in my mind for a long time trying to find the right words to address this topic.

When we go to the polls in November, the voters in my state will be asked to make a number of important decisions. One of those questions regards an amendment to our state constitution concerning the definition of marriage within MN.

This topic has gripped our nation in recent months based on various ballot questions, the presidential election and the prospect of court rulings from the highest courts in the country in the coming year or two.

What am I talking about? Well, if you haven't figured it out yet, I'm referring to same-sex marriage. For the record, I am a heterosexual female and I'm married to a heterosexual male, but this debate coursing through our country has me steaming. So, why do I care?

For me, there are multiple layers to this issue.

Fueled by Fear

I don't generally argue about religious issues here on Motherly Law, but for me this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with religion. For me, this is a legal issue, just like other laws that regulate who can and cannot marry, when, where and why.

However, for some people this is a religious issue. What I can't figure out is where in the world these people got the idea that God would want them to use His name in this hateful, fear-based argument against other human beings.

What is clear to me is that this is exactly that: a hateful rant born out of fear and misunderstanding.

I ask you, do you know any same-sex couples? Well, I do, and you know what? They are exactly like "opposite-sex" couples. That's right. They casually chat with each other over a quiet dinner; they argue over whose turn it is to do the dishes or take out the trash or get up with the crying baby; they share inside jokes; they take their kids to the park; they buy groceries; they go to church on Sunday; they live their lives just like any other family in the neighborhood.

Fear of "these people" corrupting our kids and our "family values" is misplaced.

And for the record, I have known a number of "opposite-sex" couples who should have never been allowed to get married; who made a mess of their marriage; who destroyed their families; who certainly stained our idea of "family values"; some of these people are church-going, God-fearing people...for the record.

Historical Instances of Suppressing Rights

From a historical and legal review, I would ask you to think about all the laws that have sought to restrict the rights of other groups of people and have eventually been rectified and those laws amended or overturned in court. Two groups that certainly come to my mind are women and black people.

For far too many years a woman's rights to vote, to hold certain positions, get paid an equal amount for the same work, own property and make decisions concerning her own body were held in check by laws; laws made by white men. And for the record, women's suffrage was considered a religious issue in that fight too; it would ruin "family values" and all...for the record.

Our country felt so strongly about whether white men had the right to control, nay...own other human beings and treat them as property, as the laws referred to slaves, simply because their skin was darker than the men who made the laws, that our divided nation went to war to resolve this issue.

It may have taken hundreds of years, but we have finally reconciled these wrongs. We have finally recognized the rights of all human beings...oh wait. That's right. We are now fighting hard not to allow two adults who love each other the right to get married and raise a family as a married couple with all the rights a married couple has.

From a different legal perspective, many of the laws we have on our books are there to protect people from physical or mental harm, protect their property and be sure that basic human rights are not quashed. Laws are not intended to harm a particular group of people who believe something different than the majority or single out people of a certain creed simple because some of the people in the country don't understand or agree with their beliefs or lifestyle choices.

A legal union between two consenting adults of full mental capacity, regardless of gender, national origin, religion, etc. is a basic right that harms no one, at least in my book. How would you feel if your right to marry your spouse was suddenly in question?

The Scoop

You know, as I ponder this hateful rhetoric, I think that perhaps the real fear is that same-sex couples do act like "traditional" couples. I think the real fear is that "they" raise families like the rest of "us"; "they" are just like "us" when it comes to spousal duties, in-laws, career aspirations, planning the summer vacation, etc. And if "they" are like "us" then what? I think this elicits fear of the unknown for some people.

I would liken this fear to the uncomfortable, uneasy feelings that predominated white families as minority families began moving into "their" neighborhoods years ago. While most neighborhoods and communities are quite multi-cultural now and that fear has greatly subsided, the original prejudice was based on ignorance and misunderstanding of each other's cultures and values.

If we could all be loving, peaceful and kind to one another, as the Bible teaches us, then we would get along, learn from each other and live happily ever after. While that is clearly not possible, at least not yet, I suggest that we all follow the advice of Jesus found in John 8:7 when Jesus said,

If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone...

This was in reference to a woman who had been caught committing adultery; a crime punishable by stoning. And in case you don't know the rest of the story, not one of the men present cast a stone at her or condemned her, especially not Jesus.

The point is, we have all sinned in various ways, and it's not for us to judge each other's actions and decisions and determine what's a sin and what's not and how each sin ranks on a scale 1-10.

This has NOTHING to do with fried chicken. We're talking about people, just like you and me.

And for the record, this is my opinon; a view I have a right to express thanks to our Constitution. What's your opinion? Over and out...

Anna

For more about this topic from me, please read: There's a Storm a Brewin' in Minnesota: NOH8MN

Are We There Yet? {Distracted Driving Update}

I just returned from three weeks on the road. My Darlings boys and I struck out late in June Texas bound. We covered 7 states in those 3 weeks and all in all spent 6 days in the car.

That's a lot of miles, which translates to a lot of hours, especially when you've got 2 youngsters that are pre-disposed to becoming stir-crazy, cranksters with teeny, tiny blatters if we don't stop and get out of the car about every two hours.

To fill their time, they got to watch movie after movie while sipping on cold drinks and lazily snacking on their favorite foods and had the option of reading their favorite books, drawing, playing with their toys and gazing out the window at the ever-changing terrain. I, their unpaid driver, got no such break.

I sat behind the wheel of an over-packed minivan, deftly handing out drinks and snacks and settling sibling quarrels without taking my eyes from the road, listening to my Shania Twain for hours on end rather than mindlessly shuffle through the endless small town radio stations throughout the High Plains, and I drank bottles of water to stay alert for the 8 to 11 hours of driving of each leg of the trip.

What I did not do is talk on the phone. I have found these long summer road trips to be the hardest times to not pick up my phone and start dialing. After all, I'm just sitting there hurdling down long, sometimes lonely stretches of highway. I could be making contact with people, checking things off my lists, etc. Instead, my resolve and my kids kept me honest.

I did see some people talking and driving. They weren't hard to spot. Generally, these drivers weren't using cruise control; they weren't going along at an even speed, but rather slowing down and speeding up at various intervals; they weren't focused on the other cars passing them or coming up behind them; but were instead floating along in bubbles of their own conversations.

Using phones while driving is second nature to many, but any habit can be broken. And that is exactly what drivers in some states will have to do in order to avoid paying higher fines and receiving stiffer penalties. But will hitting drivers in the wallet hurt enough to make a difference?

Well, that is exactly what California, New Jersey and Connecticut are hoping to do with new legislation.

Connecticut has increased fines for drivers using handheld phones and/or texting while driving. The fines for the 1st offense went from $100 to $125; $150 to $250 for the 2nd offense; and $200 to $400 for the 3rd offense and any other ensuing citations.

New Jersey has long been more aggressive than many states in attempting to curtail phone use while driving. In its latest attempt, the NJ Senate Law and Public Safety Committee recently approved a measure that would increase penalties for using handheld phones for talking and/or texting while driving involving raising fines and after 3 violations even suspending the offending driver's license.

California's law bans drivers from using handheld devices while operating a vehicle, but the fine, even the proposed increase, is barely a slap on the wrist with the fine being $10 for a 1st offense and $50 for a 2nd offense at this time and raising the penalty by only $10 to $20 dollars more. That will not stop people from talking and texting!

A few other states have new legislation too. At least one is banning handheld devices and texting for the first time. Idaho's no texting law took effect on July 1st as a primary enforcement offense; meaning that an officer needs no other reason to stop a vehicle if texting is suspected.

But do stricter penalties work? Do those who would break the law and continue to use handheld devices and/or text mind paying fines; or will they continue to use their phones at the risk of taking a hit in the wallet?

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do know this: dying is a very real possibility if you continue to talk and/or text while driving; and death is a very permanent and harsh penalty to pay for such an unimportant and trivial activity.

Over and out...    

Anna

A Pinterest{ing} Question: Is it Safe to Pin?

Failing to See the Forest for the Trees

A few weeks ago, we tried one of those do-it-yourself yogurt bars where you choose from 16 some odd flavors of yogurt and then pile on the toppings. You can go crazy or keep it modest. I let the boys choose their flavors and toppings with minimal help from me, allowing them to create their own unique treat. They actually kept it pretty respectable with a balance of fruit and candy.

On the way out the door, Darling 1 dropped his cup, spilling some of the kiwi fruit, gummy bears and brownie chunks out on the sidewalk. He panicked and began to go into hysterics, but I scooped it up and assured him that I had saved most of his delicious concoction. Once seated and chowing down on his frozen yogurt treat, he forgot about those lost gummy bears; and despite this small hiccup and near meltdown, he enjoyed his very distinctive "fro-yo" creation.

Sometimes we lack vision and can't see past a small stone in the path that we mistaken for a giant boulder. When that happens it takes insight from others to realize it's not really such a big deal.

Jumping the Gun

About a month ago, a woman wrote a post explaining her tearful decision to close her Pinterest account over fear of lawsuits regarding the photo links she "pinned" on this social media platform. After reading the Pinterest Terms of Use and considering copyright laws she basically panicked, pulled her boards down and spread her paranoid post across the blogosphere. I've been ruminating on this issue since reading the article. And finally, I have a chance to write about it.

For those who don't know, Pinterest is a relatively new social media platform where users can create virtual bulletin boards with different themes. Each time a user places a photo link on a board, it's called "a pin." Many websites have added buttons titled "Pin This" or other similar statements to encourage readers to post the link with a photo to their Pinterest boards.

I do have a Pinterest account, but I admit that I have barely used it and I'm certainly no expert on Pinterest, but my opinion is that this woman made a mountain out of a molehill. There are two issues to address: 1) Terms of Use; and 2) copyright laws. Neither of these issues are unique to Pinterest.

Terms of Use

The woman who sadly left Pinterest was apparently shocked to find that Pinterest claimed indemnity when it came to copyright issues, including attorney fees. Well, let me tell you that all online platforms who have covered all their bases, dotted every i and crossed every t is going to place all the blame squarely on your shoulders and leave your mess in your lap should you violate someone's copyright. And why shouldn't they?

After all, it's not Typepad's {my blog host} responsibility to make sure that I don't infringe on anyone's copyright, etc. They are merely the paid host of thousands of blogs. They are not the regulators of content, nor the owners of any of the content contained within each blog. Just as it is not Pinterest's obligation to ensure that everyone being pinned is alright with this. So, any legal actions, including any costs incurred, are the user's liability not the platform's problem.

This should not have been a shock to this woman. This is standard language in a Terms of Use policy. I would be shocked if the Terms of Use didn't contain these provisions. There's no reason to quit Pinterest because of this standard and fair language.

Copyrighted Material

As with any social media platform, all users should have at the very least a vague understanding of copyright laws in order to protect their own works and protect themselves from getting in trouble if using someone else's original work. I think, in general, misunderstandings about what constitutes copyrighted material and what is an infringement of such copyright abound in the world of social media.

It's actually quite easy to infringe on someone's copyrighted material if you're pinning content on Pinterest, posting photos that you didn't take or writing articles with liberal use of other's written words without permission from the copyright owner.

Here are a few of the basic concepts:

• What type of material is protected by copyright? {the short answer}
  • Copyright protects original works of authorship including literary, musicals. Dramatic and artistic works.
  • Copyright does not include ideas, systems, facts or methods of operation.
• What constitutes copyright infringement?
  • In general terms, a copyright is infringed when a person makes a derivative work, reproduces, performs, publicly displays or distributes copyrighted material without the permission from the copyright owner.
• What is fair use?
  • Fair use is a doctrine that allows for limited use of copyrighted materials without first acquiring permission from the copyright owner.
  • Under fair use, copyrighted material may be used for news reporting, criticism, commentary, educational uses, research and the like.
  • In determining whether fair use applies, a court will look at 4 factors;
    • Purpose and character of the use;
    • Nature of the original; material made for commercial use is less protected;
    • Amount and substance of original used; and
    • Effect that the use has had on the market of the original material.

Pinning without Permission

While "pinning" a photo that acts as a link to the original source, may or may not be considered copyright infringement {the courts haven't considered this specific issue yet}, most website owners are not going to be upset by this link. The pinning to a board in Pinterest will likely cause increased traffic to the original source's site, which for most will be considered a positive effect.

One exception might be photographers who are showcasing photos of clients or selling their art on their sites. These sites are often protected by passwords and/or have water marks on photos and provide language about the use of their photos.

However, should your "pin" not link the material to the original source, a problem could arise. And yet, most likely the first course of action will not be to file a lawsuit. Most of these issues can easily be corrected by contacting the person who is infringing on another's copyright and demand that the offending person take down copyrighted material immediately.

If that doesn't do the trick, a formal cease and desist letter would follow. And then, if there is still infringement or if there is a gross infringement or habitual infringement, a petition would most likely be filed in federal court.

The Scoop

Few with a heavy online presence haven't had to send a demand to take down a page or post or photo. It happens often, whether on purpose or in ignorance. I don't mean to say it isn't a big deal; it is. But it's usually something that can easily be dealt with without filing a lawsuit.

So, should you close up shop at Facebook, Twitter, your blog, Pinterest, et al? I don't think so. But I do think you should know what the Terms of Use that you have agreed to say and understand the basics of copyright law. When in doubt about whether what you're "taking" from another constitutes copyright infringement be sure to look it up; you can find anything online. Oh, and I'm fine with you "pinning" this on Pinterest, sharing it on Facebook or Retweeting it on Twitter Over and out....

Anna