Will the same-sex marriages haters risk a ruling that will affect the whole nation?

Today, the ruling on the prop 8 trial will be announced. The same-sex marriage haters have already filed a motion for a stay of the decision pending appeal if the case is going to be ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Based on the specifics of the motion wording, you can bet it is a win for US!

So, appeal. The current ruling ONLY affects California, and leaves the rest of the country out of the loop. A loss at the appeal court would widen this to a loss for a whole range of states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. and of course, if they appeal it to the US supreme court, it would affect the whole nation.

So, if they want to slow down how many states (have to) recognize same-sex marriages, they would be far better of to not appeal and give away California. Why? There case was a disaster. At the appeals court, they cannot bring new arguments. So, the case will be decided pretty much based on what is now on the record. And that record is, well, shitty at least. Maybe better to qualify it as non-existing.

So, what would be the alternative? Let it stand. Throw California under the train and move on. Because this means that if another gay couple in one of the other states of the union finally wants to be treated as a full citizen, they have to start their own case. With their own lawyer, their own witnesses etc. And this gives the haters one MAJOR opportunity. Time to prepare themselves better. To have real experts. And maybe they will be lucky to find a judge who is more activist and willing to impose his own conservative dogma on the case.

Of course, some day, some case will reach the US supreme court. It can be sooner if they appeal now, or maybe later if they take the loss of one state and try to build a more solid case in the next court battle. The later would be a better strategy, because it they get more favorable evidence into the records, they actually will have a higher change of winning when they finally reach the US supreme court.

But rest assured, they won't be this smart. If their performance at the trial is a indicator, they are so convinced they are right that they are willing to risk it all, just to be right! You almost would think they are actually in favor of same-sex marriage.

And because of that, we have to thank them for helping our cause. So, please, file an appeal and help us to finally ride this country of a grave injustice!

Selectivity with civil rights

Yesterday, I was once more reminded of the selectivity of people when it comes down to civil rights. When California voted for proposition 8, a large proportion came from African Americans, who should know better about civil rights. They still are struggling to get those honoured, but when it was time to support another group struggling with similar issues, they turned around and voted to uphold discriminatory practices against another group in society. The same thing you see with gay rights activists, who as easy turn around and bash another group they do not have affinity with. It sucks, but I fear it is the reality we have to deal with.

ADA: who is the problem?

So, once it has been established that discrimination takes place, how are you dealing with it. Often, the atmosphere at the workplace has been destroyed, and that often becomes an argument to continue exclusion of the person discriminated in the first place. However, is that the only solution? Well, no, because when discrimination takes place, there is the person that does the discriminating and the person that is discriminated against. So, once it has been established that discrimination takes place, the person doing the discrimination has to bone up and change their ways, and if they cannot, they should be removed from their position. That might hurt, but it is also the most effective way to ensure similar cases of discrimination won't happen again. In short, the target for resolution should be those that discriminate, not those that have been discriminated.

ADA: Discrimination definition

After the previous two posts, I thought that it might be handy to actually post the ADA definition of discrimination related to employment, which includes volunteers when the organisation voluntarily sings off on that:

The ADA prohibits discrimination in all employment practices, including job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. It applies to recruitment, advertising, tenure, layoff, leave, fringe benefits, and all other employment-related activities.

Sounds clear to me.

So, who is covered (same link):

Employment discrimination is prohibited against "qualified individuals with disabilities." This includes applicants for employment and employees. An individual is considered to have a "disability" if s/he has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. Persons discriminated against because they have a known association or relationship with an individual with a disability also are protected.

The last sentence is crucial.....

ADA: Miscommunication

I think many cases of discrimination are not intentional, but caused by stupid things such as miscommunication between people within an organisation. This is especially true for organisations without a clear structure on how to deal with all aspects. Organisations are bombarded with things they have to think about, react to, and each time, they have to do it right. Well, sometimes, that fails. Volunteer organisations are especially sensitive to this, as most volunteers learn on the job when it arises how to deal with specific aspects. And generally there is nothing wrong with that, unless that leads to for example discrimination of someone.

Good communication within an organisation is essential when someone asks for accommodation for a disability. From the initial request, such a request has to be passed on to the proper functionaries within that organisation, and they then have to act on it. This requires good communication between people. When this fails, the responsible functionaries can be genuinely ignorant about the request. When said functionary than moves on and ignore the request, the disabled person will feel unheard at least and might feel discriminated when the outcome is that the disabled person is for example excluded.

Miscommunication is not the end of the world. Shit happens. It becomes a big deal when it is defended, when the results of the miscommunication are attributed to the disabled person. That adds substantial grievance to the situation.

Fortunately, miscommunication can be dealt with. Once it is obvious that there was miscommunication, apologizing for it and straightening out what has gone wrong is often the only things what is needed. However, when that is not done, it add insult to injury and aggrevates the situation.