Supreme Court rules DOMA unconstitutional

Well, well, well.  Hello there Inner Thoughts & Outbursts readers.  It's been quite awhile since I've last written here; I fell out of the habit of blogging and, until today, didn't feel compelled to sign in.

Today, though, things changed.  Today, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional.  Today, I felt like I was witnessing an important part of history.

I've been a supporter of same-sex marriage from what I consider "the beginning" (at least, my beginning)—when my home state of Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004.  (I even wrote about it for my college newspaper, but, alas, some things on the Internet aren't forever... I can't find the links.)  I have always maintained that gay rights are civil rights and that the benefits of marriage should be available to all. 

That being said, I'm also someone who is easily overwhelmed by sad or frustrating news.  I find myself having to look away when the news covers tragedy after tragedy—tsunamis, wars, bombings, misery....  And I feel my blood pressure rising when foolish politicians yammer on and on while taking away basic human rights and imposing their views upon others.  So I wasn't actively following the case to overturn DOMA; it was simply too hard on my heart to follow its ups and downs.

But this morning, I saw that a ruling was expected.  While at work, I started listening to the news and refreshing the blogs.  When the announcement was made that DOMA was ruled unconstitutional, I burst into tears at my desk.  A coworker asked if I was okay, and I was so choked up I couldn't answer for nearly a minute. 

I certainly wasn't expecting to cry.  I feel strongly about equal marriage rights and benefits for all, but I didn't expect to tear up when I heard the news.  I expected either feelings of triumph (I had those) or more blood-boiling frustration (none of that, thanks to the outcome), but not tears.  So why?  Why did I react so strongly?

I think I started to cry for two reasons.  First, I felt like the DOMA ruling was some good political news in a world that is increasingly full of political decisions and efforts that break my heart and raise my blood pressure.  Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, I felt relieved that my gay friends and family now had this one victory in their corner.  That should their partners end up in the hospital, they'll be allowed to visit.  That they won't have to pay more for their health insurance.  That when a partner dies they won't have to pay ridiculous taxes and fees, like Edith Windsor, the woman who took her case to court and won today.

As a country, we still have a long way to go.  Today's ruling doesn't "allow" same-sex marriage in the United States; it just awards federal benefits and protection to couples who have married in states where gay marriage is legal.  But, it's a start.  And my heart is happy tonight knowing that someday, I'll be able to dance at a family member's same-sex wedding without worrying about whether or not he and his partner will be treated equally by the law. 

Important DREAM Act stalled by Republicans

Yesterday, Republican lawmakers stalled a Senate measure that would allow the children of undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship.

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (or, more commonly, the DREAM Act)

, would provide immigrant students who graduate from U.S. high schools, are "of good moral character", and arrived in the U.S. as minors to obtain temporary residency. During the six-year period of temporary residency, these students must complete at least 2 years of a college degree and be in good academic standing, or have served in the military and received an honorable discharge. After the six years, the students (or former military personnel) who have met the conditions of the Act can apply for legal permanent resident status.

Versions of the bill were circulating as early as 2001. Most recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced last week that the DREAM Act would be included as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. While the act would "give hope" to undocumented students, Republicans blocked the measure, claiming "the Obama administration of seeking amnesty for illegal immigrants through administrative changes within the Department of Homeland Security."

I have been a proponent of this bill since its first incarnation in 2001. Since minors cannot obtain permanent status without their parents, the DREAM Act would give undocumented students the chance to remain legally in the United States. Many of these students came to the U.S. at such a young age that they do not remember their home countries. These same students work hard to complete their high school education and many go on to college. Of those who don't go to college, a lack of financial aid, rather than a lack of motivation, is usually the reason. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal higher education grants, such as the Pell grant. The fact that children who grow up and succeed in U.S. elementary, middle, and high schools cannot apply for federal grants is another issue, entirely. (And one, quite frankly, that I hope to see addressed as soon as possible.)

I grew up in a low-income family. I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to participate in a college-preparatory program for students who would be the first in their families to attend college. While in the program, I met a number of students who worked hard (some worked much harder than me) to excel in school. Many of those students were immigrants. Some came here legally, others illegally. Some had acheived residency or citizenship, others were undocumented. What shouldn't matter though, is the status of children.

Children have no choice about whether or not to accompany their parents who arrive in the United States illegally, and many of them are not even aware of their undocumented status. Even if they were, I find it hard to believe that people would deny them the right to financial aid in college, or a legal path to citizenship. Immigration isn't something that shady people do in the middle of the night to "stick it" to the United States. They aren't looking to get something for nothing; they're looking to provide better lives for their children. These are real people just trying to do what they can to raise their families in safety.

When thinking about immigration laws,

we must consider the real people who are involved. When Poland declared martial law in the 1980s, my friend Marta (then just a toddler) fled the country with her parents and arrived in the U.S. illegally. My friend Jorge left the Dominican Republic as an eight-year-old, after his family fled the violence of their neighborhood that resulted in his getting shot while playing in his own yard. Maria came to the country from Columbia when her family was threatened by corrupt government officials engaging in the drug trade.

Not only were these people my friends, they were hard-working students. They wanted to be hard-working Americans, but couldn't become citizens without their parents. Their parents, like many others, were too afraid of deportation to go through the process of applying for residency. We should not only provide a way for families to apply for citizenship without risking deportation, we should make sure that children have a way to apply as well. The DREAM Act is an important first step in investing in the future of our country. Any child who grew up in the United States and successfully completed his or her public education should be allowed to apply to and attend college. If that child also needs financial aid, he should be allowed to apply for and receive it. That same child should also have access to a clear path to citizenship.

I am saddened by the great numbers of people who oppose the DREAM Act and take a strong stance against immigration. I find it ironic that people want to "take back the country" when nearly all of them are immigrants themselves. Sure, many of them come from families that have been here for generations, but nearly everyone immigrated here at some point in their family history. Native Americans are so christened for a reason -- they were native to the Americas. The rest of us, when you get right down to it, are simply immigrants. Whether or not our families came here legally, we have benefited from all this country has to offer, and have blended our cultural histories to become one of the most diverse and beautiful nations in the world.

I simply want more children to be able to have access to what I had: a solid education and the ability to "make something" of myself. The DREAM Act will help children achieve their goals of becoming productive and active members of our society.

Supreme Court rules life in prison is cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles

The juvenile justice system reached a major turning point this week when the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing non-violent juvenile offenders to life in prison constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment.

At the end of 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled to review issue of juvenile life imprisonment by looking at two cases. For the first case, a jury in 1989 found 13-year-old Joe Sullivan guilty of sexual battery. About a decade and a half later, 17-year-old Terrence Graham was convicted of committing armed burglary and violating his probation. Though both boys were too young to vote, buy cigarettes, or enlist in the military, they were not too young to be sentenced to life without parole (LWOP). Both boys were convicted of non-homicidal offenses and both were sentenced to LWOP. The juvenile justice world has been waiting anxiously since these cases made the docket, as a ruling that overturns life sentences for juveniles affects approximately 2,600 currently incarcerated inmates nationwide, and will impact future sentencing.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the majority opinion (which included support from the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Psychological Association), which was in favor of banning LWOP for juvenile offenders. Support for the ban generally falls into three categories:

1. Kristin Henning, co-director of Juvenile Justice Clinic and law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, cites research that states that juveniles brains are not fully developed, causing children to act impulsively. The research also states that children are likely to outgrow the impulse for criminal behavior, though juveniles sentenced to LWOP are not given that chance.
2. The United States is possibly the only country that currently sentences juveniles to LWOP. While the U.S. currently has about 2,6000 juveniles serving life without parole, Henning claims that no other countries have children serving such sentences; other sources cite no more than 12 foreign juveniles are in prison serving LWOP.
3. In 2005, the Supreme Court reviewed Roper v. Simmons, and declared the juvenile death penalty unconstitutional. Proponents of overturning LWOP in juvenile cases cite the 2005 ruling combined with a national consensus against juvenile life without parole in their arguments.

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed, as Justice Kennedy cited the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, which "does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a non-homicide crime."

I agree with the majority opinion in this case, though I am disappointed that the ruling does not include the seven states (including Massachusetts) that allow LWOP in homicide cases. Though homicide is a horrific offense, I think that juveniles convicted of any crime should have the opportunity for parole. A juvenile incarcerated at the age of 15 and living the average male's lifespan, for example, has more than 60 years to spend in prison. A juvenile sentence that long is ridiculous regardless of the offense.

The bottom line is that the U.S. was virtually alone in its practice of sentencing juveniles to LWOP. With any luck, the practice will be completely overturned in my lifetime. At the very least, nearly 3,000 inmates incarcerated as juveniles will now have the opportunity to be paroled. It is my firm belief that with the appropriate resources, juvenile offenders can be rehabilitated to successfully reintegrate into society. This ruling is a victory for all those juvenile justice workers maneuvering to secure rights for juvenile offenders. May there be many more victories in the future.

Prom problems? You must be kidding.

File this one under You must be kidding me.

CNN reported today that an Alabama teenager was suspended from school because her prom dress violated the school dress code. While revealing, the dress is far from risque. What's even more shocking, however, is that the girl, Erica DeRamus, had a choice of punishments and chose to take a three-day suspension over a paddling.

Pardon? Paddling? There are schools that sanction the use of corporal punishment against their students? I assumed, wrongly it seems, that paddling was an archaic method of punishment that long-ago faded away in the school systems. According to one human rights group, however, over 200,000 children were paddled in school in 2008. And in the case of DeRamus's school, 17 potential prom-goers chose to be paddled, rather than face suspension from school.


So while I shake my head in disbelief that this girl was punished for the look of her dress, I'm outraged that missing the prom (or being asked to change dresses) wasn't consequence enough and that the chosen punishment was paddling. According to the school's principal, Trey Holloday, 18 students violated the prom's dress code; all but DeRamus chose paddling over suspension. The principal states that young people make mistakes, and that school officials are "very patient when those [mistakes] are made -- including this -- but we're not tolerant of bad behavior or defiance."

It seems to me that Principal Holloday has several problems on his hands. First, he says he's patient when students -- like DeRamus -- make mistakes, but that he won't tolerate bad behavior; simply stated, he acknowledges that DeRamus made a mistake, but punishes her anyway, as though she was purposefully defiant. Secondly, his opinion of inappropriate dress is out of line; while DeRamus's dress was short, it wasn't a miniskirt, and the top was just as cleavage-barring as most prom dresses on the market. Thirdly, having to change clothes or missing the prom should be "punishment" enough for students who violate the prom's dress code; no additional actions need be taken. And finally, the fact that corporal punishment was even an option (and a widely-chosen one at that!) is barbaric and archaic.

People like Principal Holloday shouldn't be educators, nor should the folks who canceled 18-year-old Constance McMillen's prom after she asked to wear a tuxedo and bring a same-sex date to the dance. What, exactly, are these adults afraid of? Are they so scared by the fact that Constance is a lesbian that they're willing to battle with the ACLU and deprive kids of a major rite of passage? Does principal Holloday enjoy being a bully or exerting his power? Randomly subjecting students to punitive actions doesn't teach them anything; it merely gives the impression that people in positions of power get to be bullies, creating and enforcing rules arbitrarily.

It would be nice if kids were allowed to be kids. Put basic safety rules in place and let kids go to the prom in tuxes or dresses and with whomever they choose. The world has bigger problems than whether two girls go to the dance together or whether a student arrives in a cleavage-baring gown. Only once educators start focusing on what's really important will they truly be impacting the character and moral fiber of their students.

The battle for marriage equality rages on

I admittedly don't follow politics very closely. The reason isn't that I don't care about what happens in the world, it's that I don't like to watch grown men slinging proverbial mud at one another, running dirty campaigns, and spouting their hateful opinions and misguided ideas to any media outlet foolish enough to listen. I also find the influence of money in the political arena heartbreaking; those campaigns with more money shouldn't "win" simply because their money buys more airtime and more flyers.

One issue in particular is always in the spotlight -- equal marriage rights. In fact, this battle rages on across the country making progress and then falling back. I'm sometimes shocked at how long "we the people" are able to debate an issue! Back when Inner Thoughts & Outbursts was just a column in a weekly newspaper, I wrote a piece comparing the battle for marriage equality (allowing same-sex couples to marry) to the battle for civil rights (allowing black children to attend the same schools as white children). In that editorial I stated that now, as always, the answer to a human rights question is equality. Denying marriage (or calling it a "civil union") to gay couples is unequal and unconstitutional.

Sitting down to reread the column (written this very week, six years ago), I am shocked that the issue is still so prominent in politics and in the public eye. I expected gay marriage to be commonplace by now. I didn't expect that the battle would still be so prevalent and that states that had granted equal marriage rights would have to fight to defend their positions, sometimes losing and having once-granted rights suddenly taken away.

All hope is not lost, however. About a month ago I read a story about a high school in California targeted by the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). The WBC routinely protests gay rights and carries signs reading, "God hates fags," "God hates the U.S.A." and other such nonsense. The WBC is also a group with enough cash behind it so as to have a sophisticated website and a whole staff committed to organizing press opportunities and protests. While I was shocked that such a group would target a high school, I was pleasantly surprised to read about the school's response.

According to the article, Gunn High School's Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) planned a peaceful counter demonstration that not only showed its support in the fight for gay rights, but poked fun at the WBC protesters. Students from other schools and school groups joined the GSA and spent the morning singing songs, waving flags, and holding a peaceful demonstration. They even carried signs reading "God hates signs" and "Love is Love" to poke fun at the ridiculousness of WBC's hateful protesting.

Students interviewed for the article talked about the peace and love behind the demonstration, and discussed why they won't be deterred by protesters' intolerance. When I read the kids' sentiments and saw their funny signs, I felt a wave of relief rush over me; maybe the future isn't doomed! Perhaps there is still hope for polite politics!

The kids of Gunn High School showed class when they responded to such hatred in a peaceful and tongue-in-cheek way. They also gave me hope that someday marriage equality will no longer be an issue -- it'll just be the norm and everyone will be able to enjoy the same rights. Someday these children will grow into adults, and maybe the political mudslinging will stop. Maybe these young people will be able to separate politics from human rights and our national policies will change for the better. Maybe, there will come a day when I can turn on the television or read the news and not be dismayed by the ugliness and bigotry displayed there, because there won't be any.