California: Falling short of the natural evolution of social policy since November, 2008 (Silverman, R.S., 2009)

Tuesday's California Supreme Court decision to up hold Prop 8 has once again brought the debate regarding gay marriage to the forefront of the political arena. The history of this debate is long and tumultuous. Since the early days of the gay rights movement, gay rights activists have been seeking equal rights in the eyes of the law. A key component of equal rights is the recognition of households and relationships. To this end, in 1984 Berkley, California was the first government body in the United States to recognize same-sex couples when offering partnership benefits for their government and school employees. Nine years later the national debate regarding same-sex marriage erupted when the Hawaii Supreme Court declared that, barring a "compelling state interest," the State of Hawaii could not bar same-sex couples from marrying without violating its own equal protection statutes. The Hawaii state legislature soon amended the constitution to overrule the Court.

Yet, despite a variety of roadblocks the fight for the recognition of same-sex couples in the eyes of the law continues. One such roadblock was the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 that prevents any future hypothetical same-sex married couples from receiving federal benefits. This act also stipulates that no state needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

Perhaps the biggest roadblock to same-sex marriage occurred this past November with the passage of Proposition 8 in California. In May 2008, California became the second state in the U.S. (after Massachusetts) to allow same-sex marriage. In an attempt to overrule this decision anti-gay activists put a measure on the California ballot to change the constitution to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. While the battle was hard fought Prop 8 passed 52-48%. Proponents for same-sex marriage brought the issue before the court hoping that Prop 8 would be overturned. On May 26, the California Supreme Court ruled that Prop 8 will stand as law in California. It did however, stipulate that the marriages of the 18,000 or so same-sex couples who married between June and November 2008, before Prop 8 was passed will remain valid. But from this point on, same-sex marriages will not be legal in California.

Despite the various roadblocks proponents of gay marriage have faced, there have been several victories. Currently in the United States gays and lesbians can legally marry in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Maine, while several other states, including New York, will recognize same-sex marriages performed by other states.

While these states should be congratulated for their progressive and forward thinking ways, it is not enough. It is time for the federal government to take action. For years gay rights issues have been compared to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. It is time the federal government took a page from that time in our nation's history. It wasn't until the federal government passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment was outlawed. Once the Act was implemented, its effects were far reaching and had tremendous long-term impacts on the whole country. It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment, invalidating the Jim Crow laws in the southern United States. Proposition 8 is the new Jim Crow laws of gay rights. Giving a sub sect of citizens different and lesser rights is morally and constitutionally unfounded. It is time the politicians in Washington grew a pair of balls and fought for equal rights for all of the citizens of this country, despite whatever political fallout they may personally face. By creating federal legislation which recognizes marriage for all of its citizens and eliminating the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government will redeem itself from its prior indiscretions.

The only other option is to eliminate state marriage completely. If a hetero or homosexual couple wants to get married they can go to their local church or synagogue and get married through their local religious institution. Otherwise, everyone who wants to make an official commitment in the eyes of the law can get a civil union. This will create equality for all couples in the United States. However, this option is unrealistic and will never happen.

While I understand the religious implications regarding gay marriage that isn't the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether same-sex couples can be married in the eyes of the law. If religious institutions want to marry gay couples that is their prerogative. Last I checked there is a separation between church and state. Churches can decide for themselves if they want to have same-sex marriage involved in their institutions but the state cannot discriminate against its citizens.

Twenty years from now, do you want to explain to your children how you were on the wrong side of history? It is time to push for equal rights for all this nations citizens, now!

Abstinence v. Comprehensive Sex Education

Bristol Palin’s recent media blitz has once again brought the issue of teen pregnancy back to the forefront. Despite her past assertion that abstinence is unrealistic, Ms. Palin is now the spokesperson for the Candies Foundation. The Candies Foundation’s mission is to educate America's youth about the devastating consequences of teenage pregnancy. Ms. Palin, along with the Candies Foundation, has chosen to promote abstinence as the best way to prevent teen pregnancy but do the facts back up their assertion?

Let’s get some basic facts down about teen pregnancy and sex. Currently over 2000 teenage girls get pregnant every day. That’s a staggering 750,000 teen pregnancies a year. In the US, nearly 4 in 10 teen pregnancies (excluding those ending in miscarriages) are terminated by abortion.

The United States currently has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the world. There are more teen pregnancies in the United States then in Italy, France, Spain and Germany combined. While the teen pregnancy rates dropped from 1991- 2005, recent reports show that the number of teenage girls who become pregnant is once again on the rise.

Over the past 8 years the Bush administration heavily favored abstinence only sexual education in the nation’s public schools. President Bush’s push for abstinence only sex ed. is a continuation of his initiative as the Governor of Texas. It was in Texas that then Governor Bush put over ten million dollars towards abstinence only sex ed. programs. This initiative was not shown to be effective at curbing teen pregnancies or halting the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Yet, despite its apparent failure to stem the rise in teen pregnancy and STDs President Bush continued to be a strong advocate for abstinence only sexual education programs once he entered the White House. President Bush expanded these programs to public schools throughout the nation. In his last budget as president, President Bush requested approximately $136 million dollars to expand abstinence only programs in public schools.

President Obama takes a different approach to teen pregnancy prevention. In the budget released a couple of weeks ago, President Obama eliminates federal funding for sexual education that teaches abstinence only. His budget proposes a teen pregnancy initiative that uses evidenced based models. The portion of the budget that discusses this new initiative reads as follows:

The 2010 Budget proposes a new Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative to support community-based and faith-based efforts to reduce teen pregnancy using evidence-based and promising models. In addition, a new Strengthening Communities Fund will help build the capacity of non-profit organizations and State, Local and Tribal entities to better serve low-income and disadvantaged populations. This Budget also proposes funding for (1) a new child welfare initiative, and (2) a human services case management system for Federally-declared disasters. This Budget eliminates funding for Community-Based Abstinence Education, the mandatory Title V Abstinence Education program, the Compassion Capital Fund, and Rural Community Facilities. The 2010 Budget includes $50,000,000 in mandatory funds for States, territories, and Tribes to use for teen pregnancy prevention.

Which of these programs works? While it is easy to blame the Bush administration for the recent increase in teen pregnancy do the facts back it up? The answer simply is yes! An overwhelming amount of research shows that abstinence only programs simply do not work. In 2001, the Institute for Medicine urged Congress and other government bodies to “eliminate requirements that public funds be used for abstinence-only education, and that states and local school districts implement and continue to support age-appropriate comprehensive sex education and condom availability programs in schools.” It was their assertion that by limiting sex education to promote abstinence only that teen pregnancy and STD rates would increase. Research clearly shows that comprehensive sexual education, such as the new initiative President Obama is proposing, does not increase sexual activity, it does not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, nor does it increase the number of sexual partners. To the contrary, some sex and HIV education programs delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, or reduce the number of sexual partners thus helping to curb the chances of teen pregnancy.

Mission Statement

This blog will discuss various issues that revolve around social work and politics. Enjoy!