Friday, August 27, 2010

Todays disapointment

Since I was old enough I have given blood and/or platelets with the red cross or other blood services. Some time in my early 20s I had to stop donating whole blood because it totally wiped me out and I took ages to get all my red cells back. After that I started donating platelets as often as 2 times a month. I viewed it was a way to give of myself that would not only help others but could save someone life.

When I got pregnant with my son I had to stop donating platelets. It has been over three years since my last donation and I have been preparing myself to start again as my son has been slowly weaning himself. A new hurdle to jump, for anyone who has been pregnant, is an HLA antibody test. They instituted this test because the Red Cross found that there were more transfusion reactions with blood from donors who were HLA positive.

So on Monday I went into the donation center and had them draw a vial of blood for the test. Today I called for the results and, unfortunately, I am positive for the HLA antibody and can no longer donate platelets. I am unable to express how hugely disappointed I am.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Might Does Not Make Right

I was happy to hear that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that voter approved Proposition 8 was unconstitutional and that it

"fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples"

Although nothing will actually change in California based on this ruling, the judge has also granted a stay until appeals can be completed, this is just another step in removing another form of institutionalized discrimination from our country.

The comments that I see repeatedly from the supporters of Prop 8 have to do with the judge (who stands as a symbol of the elite who are out of touch with the common man) ignoring the voice of the citizens. They seem to think that if they get enough votes then they can ignore the constitution. They want to pretend that "majority rules" is a covenant of our republic. They conveniently ignore the fact that convincing a majority of registered voters to cast a particular vote on a particular issue has nothing to do with the legality or constitutionality of that issue. The Constitution and its amendments are designed to protect the rights of the citizenry from the whims of the majority.

Throughout history of the United States, the voting majority of each time has sought to propagate discrimination on many fronts including denying women and blacks the right to vote and prohibiting the marriage of interracial couples. In turn, each of these were revealed to have no rational basis and that continued support of those ideas were based solely on animus. The same applies to the continued prohibition of same-sex marriages. At its most basic a marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. There is no rational or reasonable excuse that two men or two women should not be able to enter in to this contract and receive all the federal, state and local benefits afforded to a male and female entering into the exact same contract.