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

Leaving Children Behind....in the Lunch Room

Feed Their Minds and Bodies

Here's what I think...All children, no matter race, creed, national origin, address, tax bracket or any other factor should have food to eat. No child should be left behind without a meal to eat at school.

Going hungry teaches desperation, heartbreak, bitterness and misunderstanding. Providing school lunches does not teach laziness, greed or a sense of entitlement; they are not handouts. Food is a basic necessity of life.

Children who are fed learn better, listen better and are happier, more focused and participate in class. Children who go hungry are cranky, listless, tired and poor students.

I'm not a dietician, a physician, a psychologist or a social worker. I'm a mom. This is common sense. Kids should have enough food to eat in the "greatest country in the world."

The Politics of Feeding Kids

Politics should not figure into this issue. Unfortunately, it has to if there is to be money to feed kids who do not have food at home to bring to school for lunch, and who more than likely will go without breakfast and snacks too.

Yes, there are programs for free and subsidized lunches, but there are limits regarding who is eligible for those programs. And in our economically depressed country, often the working poor are suffering greatly in reality, but on paper it appears that they are making the ends meet and therefore, do not qualify for these school lunch programs. Or perhaps these kids qualify for the reduced cost lunch program, but even that is just too much for the family. Or maybe there are language or cultural barriers or misunderstandings or miscommunications that cause kids who would qualify for these programs to never become enrolled and end up going without.

Turning Kids Away

Regardless of the situation of why kids are going hungry at school, the point is it is happening. According to a Star Tribune article, Legal Aid along with four Minneapolis law firms conducted a survey of the 182 school districts in Minnesota regarding school lunch policies and here is some of what they found:

"30 Minnesota school districts have some form of 'turn-away' policy, ranging from allowing the child a limited number of hot meals before stopping, to turning even the youngest grade-schoolers away immediately.

Seven districts stamp children's hands as a deterrent to nonpayment. One district issues a 'red card' after four unpaid lunches, while another issues 'purple tickets' for nonpayers.

One district brings a child into the kitchen where the hot lunch is taken away and exchanged for a bag lunch. Another takes the lunch tray away at the end of the line.

Diplomas are being withheld from some nonpaying high school seniors. Bill collectors are going after some of their parents."

According to a MPR article, about 20% of the school districts in MN have some form of turn-away policy.

The Star Tribune reports that Minneapolis, Anoka-Hennepin, Delano, Robbinsdale and Brainerd do provide hot lunches to their students whether the kids have the money to cover the cost or not while St. Paul offers a sandwich to non-paying kids.

Footing the Bill

There are bills moving through the Minnesota legislature that would expand the budget for free school lunches. According to the MPR article, Minnesota currently provides about 250,000 free lunches per school year. Advocates of this bill would like to increase that number by about 62,000.

This is not the first time such a bill has been introduced, but Jessica Webster of Legal Aid, who has been instrumental in putting together this information, getting the word out and gaining support for this issue, is more optimistic with the increased backing by key people.

Part of the problem is that school district budgets are already strapped. Where will the funds come from for these extra meals? Funding is a major concern for many school administrators and yet children going through the school days without enough food in their bellies should be equally vital concern for these administrators.

The Scoop

Sen. Sean Nienow, ranking minority member on the Senate Education Finance Committee, was quoted in MPR article as saying, "That may be tight, but most of those families probably can pitch in."

While this may be the case some of the time, with some of the families, he who has never been in such a situation does not know how very tight it can be on some days, some weeks or some months! When a parent must decide whether to pay the mortgage/rent or the electricity/gas or buy groceries or buy gas to be able to get to work and there is no wiggle room, that's a difficult, gut-wrenching, heartbreaking decision. We must be able to walk in another's shoes and see how the world looks when it's very dim with nowhere to turn in the immediate future.

And we must take care of our children; the children who will grow up and build and govern and create and have families and teach and guide and take care of each other. We focus on "no child left behind" and work to be sure that each child learns the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic, but what about the basic necessities of being fed enough food and being nourished, body and soul.

I have contacted my school district's superintendant to inquire about the policies in my district. I hope you will do the same. Fortunately, there are some angel donors, teachers, principals, lunch room staff, etc. who take matters into their own hands, regardless of what school policy is and reach out to the children without and provide them with sustenance. And to those kind and generous souls I say thank you. But this is not enough. Minnesota, you can do better! Over and out...

Anna

 

Random Tidbits: On a Rampage {Strong Opinions}

New Rules

I've been juggling a lot with work lately, which means that everything else suffers. So, I've decided to make some rules for myself, and I'm really trying to stick with it.

I'm setting weekly office hours. We're holding weekly family meetings with an agenda, a white board and an Angry Bird (that's a whole other post...stay tuned). I'm standing firm on what I can and cannot add to my overly stuffed schedule...and refusing to feel guilty about saying "No" when I need to.

Unfortunately, one of the things that has taken a backseat to being a priority lately has been writing. So, I'm trying this Random Bits style again...cuz you know I have things to say, but just not much time to get them said!

Bits and Pieces

1. Y'all know how I feel about using your phone and driving, right?! If you don't then read this: I Hit A Child with My Car and all the other Distracted Driving posts I've written. Well, my friend, Trina, a dedicated Phone Down, Eyes Up driver sent me this photo that her friend sent to her. I love it! And there's a lot of truth in this statement...believe it.
   
2. In DC, a Councilmember has introduced a bill to curb cheating. If passed, it would make facilitating cheating on standardized tests illegal. Now I'm certainly against cheating, but what troubles me is that there has to be such laws in place to prevent school personnel from tampering with tests.

   Shouldn't this be a given to teachers and administrators? Perhaps, the better answer is to take a look at why there is such a need to "fix" standardized tests in this district and examine the education resources and funding.

3. Apparently there is overcrowding at the Metro Louisville jail in Kentucky. The solution? Well, USA Today reports that "tech-savvy professionals will use technology and data to study the overcrowding," of course. The pros will be trying to find some possible solutions.

   News Flash! I've got a solution. Use that money to study how to get kids off the streets, keep them safe, educate them, and get them out of the cycle of committing crimes-jail-committing crimes-jail that many of their older siblings, parents, aunts and uncles and friends are in instead of employing "tech-savvy professionals." This is not an engineering/spatial problem; this is societal issue, a human interest story that could have happy ending.

4. Lastly, the total cost of the 2012 elections, from federal to state to local offices, was...hold on to your boots, friends... $7.3 BILLION (according to Politico.com)! WHAT A WASTE! Don't get me started on what that could have been spent on. This amount of money could have made a huge impact on many of the very causes and issues and institutions and families addressed by the candidates running for office. So many could have been greatly benefitted by even a fraction of this money being spent in a positive way. Here are more of my thoughts on the subject of political campaign spending.

The Scoop

Hmmm, it turns out I'm full of opinions this Monday morning. Well, there you have it. Over and out...

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

Getting a Handle on Health “Care” {Fighting the Flu and the System}

Urgent Care

I dragged my achy, feverish, hacking body out of bed, put a hat on my head and headed to a HealthPartners urgent care on Sunday evening. It was Day 6 of a losing battle with the flu. I was concerned that it might be turning to pneumonia and wanted a suggestion on how to get this horrendous cough to stop long enough for me to sleep and not wake up choking and gasping.

What I got was tired, used up, rude and rushed. I was the only patient in the waiting room, but I waited 45 minutes, which didn't ruffle my feathers at all. I was in a peaceful, quiet waiting room; I can't complain about that. My family had left me and walked up the block to eat dinner in a café.

When I was called back, it was just past closing time; something I had already noted. The nurse was friendly and compassionate, despite my awful cough and rasping, grating, whispering, squeaking, gravelly voice.

Lack of Care

Then, the nurse practitioner came in. She looked tired, but smiled. I was still hopeful.

But as I began to try to explain my chief complaints and concerns, she said, "I can't really hear you. Can I just get on with the exam? I was here late last night and it's been a long day."

To which I said, "I understand, I waited 45 minutes." To which she retorted, "45 minutes? Wow! That's an excellent wait time for this weekend."

To which I fixed my cold gray eyes on her and smiled and nodded. I now knew where we stood.

She did a quick exam and then sat down at the computer with her back to me, going through a checklist. She got to a line about my ears and said, "Well, your ears looked good." To which I said in a very firm whisper, "You didn't look at my ears."

At this point, she realized she was messing up. She tried to laugh it off with statements like "oh, I've just seen so many people this weekend;" "So sorry about that;" "Can I get you a bottle of water?"

Too late; I had already made a mental note to stop at the front desk and get the manager's name and number; and once I have a voice to be "heard" I will be calling to file a complaint.

In the beginning of the exam before even listening to my lungs, she asked me if I'd like a lung X-ray. I told I have no idea if I need one. Then, as I was leaving she said, "Well, I hope you don't have pneumonia." Really? Well, me too. That's why I came here!

Service with a Smile

Too harsh? I don't think so. I have high expectations of any customer facing profession. I have worked in customer facing positions at various points and in various capacities since I was 16. I have always had high expectations for myself in these roles too.

No matter whether the customer/patient/client you are seeing is #3 or #23 of the day, you better treat that person like he or she is the only person you are seeing that day. Tired? Feet hurt? Head hurt? Grin and bear it! Nothing less than what I have done myself. That's your job.

Where's the Love?

Unfortunately, this is not the only time I have received such poor health "care." Some months ago, I found myself feeling wretched a few days before I had to head out of town for work. I decided the quickest solution was to run to Target's "Minute" Clinic after dropping Darling 2 at preschool. I was the 5^th patient to be seen that morning, waited 45 minutes to see a doctor, only to be rushed through the exam because she had lots of people to see that morning. She even told me that she would ask the questions and all I needed to do was answer her. I flat out told her I'd never be coming back.

There are other ridiculous scenarios over the many of years of my life. And maybe it's just me; I somehow find all the quacks out there when I am at my sickest; or so it seems.

Fighting {For/Against} Reform

But here's my point; if this is the face of health care in our country why are so many fighting so hard against a reform?

If you honestly believe there is no room for improvement in care, both from the medical staff and the approach that is taken; you don't think that anyone and everyone in this country should have access to health care; including those with pre-existing conditions, young children and the working poor like the guy delivering you pizza on that cold, snowy night that you don't want to venture out in; and you see no room for improvement in our current insurance/medicare/medical care systems, then please leave a comment here explaining your point. I'm truly curious.

The Scoop

This issue is not about whether you fall in the red or blue category or whether you support our President. This is an issue about people, and the right way to treat each other!

And don't worry, Health Partners, I'll be talking to you soon, but I'm still trying to get over this flu...Day 10. Over and out...

Anna

A Pledge....for the Unity of Our Nation; Overcoming the Great Divide

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The election is over; the results mean joy and relief for some and frustration and concern for others. Regardless of where you fall on this wildly swinging pendulum of emotions and viewpoints, our nation is still one nation.

However, in my Facebook stream and in the various news reports the hatred, the misunderstanding, the ranting and the tirades and the closeness of the popular vote, reveal the deep and vast divide within our country.

And this is weighing on my shoulders.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Why should I care? What does it matter?

There was once an issue that deeply divided our country. The hate grew and grew and divided families and friends and a nation; it filled fields with blood; it burned cities; it destroyed lives; and in the end freedom prevailed.

Could there ever be an issue that divided our strong, enduring country again; an issue that brought our government to the brink of civil war again; that threatened to destroy life as we know it? I hope not, but this level of divisiveness after an election of our local, state and national leaders is worrisome.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Liberal and conservative; young and old; white, black, yellow, brown and purple; single and married; Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and atheist; accountant, nurse, teacher, business owner, farmer, lawyer and mechanic; we still pledge our allegiance to the same flag; to our one nation under God; together as one; because we care about our rights and the rights of our neighbors in the house next to ours and those in other states; and we believe our system of weights and balances won't fail us.

I believe we, as Americans, truly want to do the right thing by helping those in need and paying our fare share of taxes and being good citizens and working for our good and the good of all the people. I STILL believe in our government, in our laws, in our leaders and in our people, regardless of all the issues that divide us at the polls and in our daily lives.

Call me naïve, call me bleeding heart liberal, call me silly and stupid, but I will still believe and I will pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all...because I am STEADFAST and I am ETERNALLY OPTIMISTIC and I have the FAITH of a mustard seed.

Will you join me in this pledge? Will you continue to believe in our great country? 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

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

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

Political Campaign Contributions: A Waste of Money {Soapbox}

Several weeks ago, I spotted an ad to enter a giveaway for dinner with President Obama. There are to be 3 winners and each winner can bring a guest. The dinner is to be held at an undisclosed location with dinner, airfare and hotel accommodations paid for the winners and their guests.

That sounds like a nice gesture to get in touch with the "real people" in the nation and chat with the President while breaking bread together. For a split second, I even contemplated entering this drawing.

But here's the part that got to me. The estimated value of each winner's package is $4800. So, for all 3 winners and guests, that's almost $15,000; and that doesn't count the cost of the President's travels and secret service duties, etc.

Now, $15,000 probably doesn't seem like much to the President and the committee, Obama for America, who is conducting this contest, but to the average American family, $15,000 is a good chunk of change. And for the average American family who is living under the gun of unemployment or underemployment and the ever rising costs of living, $15,000 is a great sum.

And honestly, what will this contest get the President and his committee? Mostly contact information for thousands of voting citizens; whom they will bombard with phone calls, emails and letters for the next 6 months. For the 6 citizens, who are most likely already going to vote for Obama, it gives them a chance to bend the President's ear for an hour or two and a good story to tell their grandkids about the time they got to have dinner with the President of the United States.

Seriously, what a waste of money. And remember, I'm a democrat and generally vote that way.

Another story that really got me going was the report about Sheldon Adelson and his donations to conservative causes and campaigns. Now, let me preface this by saying that each person can certainly spend his or her money any way he or she pleases. My intent is merely to point out the extravagances of political campaigns and the wasted dollars for what....mostly so the people contributing can ensure they have votes in their pockets concerning issues that will cause them to lose money or make more money down the road {most likely the reason for Adelson's very generous spirit}.

Adelson, a billionaire casino tycoon and conservative, is contributing $10 million to the Super PAC that supports Mitt Romney, the GOP candidate, but even more disconcerting is the report that Adelson will be giving at least $100 million to other conservative causes and campaigns.

To a billionaire like Adelson $100 million probably means absolutely nothing. It certainly won't affect the way he and his family live. But just think what a $100 million could mean to the strapped school districts in our country, youth programs, scholarship funds and other community programs that could mean the difference from lost, uneducated, stamped down, underperforming, dependent on welfare to educated, informed, confident, hard-working, self-sufficient adults of tomorrow.

It's not just Obama for America and Adelson I mean to point my finger at. It's all political campaigns and contributors that I'm targeting.

I have a theory I'd love to try.

I'd love to see what would happen if instead of campaign contributions going for ridiculous, outrageous, stupid, degrading advertising, endless phone calls to citizens, dinners with big contributors, traveling the country with huge entourages and staying in 5 star hotels, eating expensive meals, getting costly haircuts, buying designer clothes and living the high life on the road to supreme success or failure, the candidate put the money towards bettering communities hit hard by the economic hardships brought on by gluttonous executives and hasty, misguided, greedy politicians.

What if the candidate actually put his money where his mouth is and started doing the things he says he will do if elected? What if the candidate gave money to school districts to hire a sufficient number of teachers, helped to equip schools with new equipment and up-to-speed programs and set up scholarships for graduating students? What if the candidate helped poor families who have greatly suffered from losing jobs and insurance coverage by repairing homes or getting necessary medical treatments or eye glasses or buying new shoes for growing kids or filling empty cupboards?

What if underfunded youth programs received sufficient funding and staffing from a candidate's coffers? What if these programs meant fewer drive-by shootings, fewer drug-pushers on the corner, fewer teen-agers having babies, fewer drop-outs all because these kids had somewhere to go, somewhere to feel secure, somewhere to get love and support?

What if a candidate did this? What would happen? Would the candidate win for being sincere and real and seeing what America really needs or would the candidate lose because there had been no glitz or glamour; no elitism; no playing mistress to the big boys of the corporate world?

As of April of this year, the conservative Super PAC, Restore Our Future, had raised $56.5 million. Just think of all the good that could be done with that amount of money. Instead it will be COMPLETELY WASTED.

There is so much waste in politics; so much that I can hardly bare to think about it. This much waste makes me physically sick.

Let's remember that the original obligation of government was to serve the people of the fledgling country through a democracy. How far we have strayed from that dream of our Founding Fathers. Now, our government is ruled by corporations and the almighty dollar; regardless of whether you vote blue or red, your government representatives are not there for you. That is, they aren't there to listen or help you unless you have a very large amount of money to contribute to their campaigns; and by large I mean at least $1,000,000.00.

Cynical? Hell, yes, but is this not an honest picture of today's political campaigns? Over and out....

Anna