Southern Equality

On March 26, 2013, a group of around 150 gathered on the beach in Gulfport MS for a bonfire and candle light vigil so that all Americans can enjoy equal rights. Currently the US Supreme Court is hearing debating on the issue of gay marriage.

The first person I introduced myself to was Sara Bell. In January, she and her wife tried to apply for a marriage license at the Forrest County Circuit Clerk office. They were denied. It was heartbreaking to her and the other stories at the vigil. All they want is the freedom to spend their lives legally with the person they love. Nine states have legalized same sex marriages.

And yet, because of DOMA, those marriages are not recognized by the federal government or other states in which same sex marriages are not legal.

How can we, as Americans, deny the right to marry to others? It wasn't so long ago that bi-racial marriages were considered immoral and a threat to "traditional" marriages.

Thanks to groups like Campaign for Southern Equality there was hope among those gathered at the vigil. I hope Rose and Lynn and the many other couples there will soon have equality.

It seems as though everyone in the South defends the 2nd Amendment loudly and argue against "Big Government" interfering in their lives. Well the DOMA Act and many state laws do just that. Those other amendments are just as important. The 14th Amendment reads thus:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It seems states like mine are denying equal protection to gays who wish to marry. It is time for this discrimination to end.

No Justice

The Supreme Court has made another infamous ruling. It further erodes the protections against excesses and abuses of our rights. Each one of us, those who have never committed a crime and those who have, need to be worried.

The new ruling affects our 6th Amendment rights:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

At stake is the right to the accused to be represented by counsel. The case involves a man who was appointed a public defender:

At a preliminary hearing, a judge ordered that a public defender be appointed. The timing is in dispute, but at some point Mr. Montejo was read his Miranda rights again and agreed to accompany detectives to locate the murder weapon, which he had indicated that he had thrown into a lake.

During the trip, he wrote a letter of apology to the victim’s widow, using paper and pen provided by the detectives. Only upon his return did Mr. Montejo meet with his lawyer, who was furious that his client had been questioned in his absence, and was further incensed when the letter was admitted as evidence at trial.

This descision also infringes upon our 5th Amendment rights. There are numerous laws, such as the PATRIOT Act, certain laws passed during the war on drugs, and another passed a couple of years ago which infringe upon our 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendment rights. These are not rights that are there just to protect those who have been accused of crimes. They are there to protect everyone's rights. They were framed into our Constitution because of the excesses of British colonial rule. Are we willing to give up those precious rights which protected us from the excesses of a power-hungry government?

Justice Stevens sums it up best:

Mr. Montejo’s Sixth Amendment right to legal representation, as well as his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, were damaged by the ruling, Justice Stevens said.

“Such a decision can only diminish the public’s confidence in the reliability and fairness of our system of justice,” he said.

I disagree with Justice Scalia:

That 1986 ruling has not only proved “unworkable,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, but its “marginal benefits are dwarfed by its substantial costs” in that some guilty defendants go free.

I tend to think like John Adams:

"The reason is because it's of more importance to the community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished".