Shouldn't We All Have Equal Rights?

Last Wednesday, I made the two hour drive out to Columbia, Missouri. No, I wasn’t going to see the Tigers play, I was going to attend a town hall hosted by Promo, Faith Aloud and the ACLU to discuss the important issues surrounding a gay man who had been discriminated against by the state of Missouri. You might be asking yourself, “Wait, what do LGBT rights have to do with Faith Aloud?”

We’re glad you asked. Faith Aloud is committed to exploring all of the ways faith and spirituality intersect with issues of sexuality. We think reproductive justice and LGBTQ advocacy are intimately linked because they both are about the privacy of adults to make their own decisions regarding sexual partners and reproduction. Faith Aloud opposes stereotyping, discrimination, and any religious attempt to control the sexual behavior of consenting adults in a mutually satisfying relationship. In a nutshell, we supports all persons in their struggle to create the families they desire. Sorry about the shameless plug-- let’s get back to the issue at hand: the town hall meeting to discuss the case of Kelly Glossip V. MODOT.

At the meeting, there was a phenomenal panel of speakers from the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, Promo, and the Human Services Department of Columbia. But for me, the best part of the meeting was hearing Kelly Glossip himself speak. He told the story of how he and his partner Dennis met, how they dated for 3 years, and then had a commitment ceremony and considered themselves married for 12. He talked about how they had raised Kelly’s son together, and had built a beautiful life together based on love, trust, and devotion. He described the unbearable heartbreak of finding out his partner had been killed, on Christmas of all days. At this point he broke down for a moment, saying, “Even though it’s been almost two years since his death, it’s still impossible to speak about without crying.” He continued on to talk about the discrimination and disrespect he faced at every turn. At the funeral, the minister mentioned Dennis’ dog in the Eulogy, but not his life partner or the son they shared. Similarly, the obituary made no mention of the immediate family Dennis was leaving behind. Choking back tears, Kelly sighed, “It was hard enough to try to deal with the enormous grief of losing your true love. But it’s even worse to be invisible in your grief, to be ignored by the very groups that should be supporting you.” In attempt to gain much needed financial support for himself and his son, Kelly applied for survivor benefits that are promised to the spouses of fallen Police Officers and Highway Patrol. To prove his and Dennis’ commitment to each other, Kelly attached about an inch-thick stack of papers showing that he and his partner shared bank accounts, mortgages, cars, and the guardianship of a child. Yet his application for survivor benefits was the first ever to be denied. At the end of his testimony, Kelly looked down at his hands and said softly, "All I am asking is for the same dignity for my family as is shown to any other Highway Patrol family in their time of need. Thanks for listening to my story.”

Let me tell you, it is hard to listen to a speech like that from a sweet, unassuming man and not feel sad and angry about the bigotry he’s faced. And worst of all, as the laws currently stand in Missouri, it is not illegal to deny a gay individual of spousal rights-- in 2004, Missouri passed an amendment that would ban gay marriage. However, on the bright side, this amendment does allow for the opportunity to recognition of other relationships in order to extend full equality to all citizens. Therefore, under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, the ACLU will argue that Missouri Department of Transportation must not deny committed partners the benefits they deserve.

Tomorrow there will be a similar Town Hall Meeting in Springfield, MO. If you are anywhere near Springfield or have any friends in the area who might be interested, I encourage you to attend-- it was a very moving and informative experience for me, and this case has very important implications for the future rights of LGBT citizens. If you cannot attend, we urge you to follow the case, talk about it with your friends, and send letters to your representatives letting them know that the equality of all citizens is an important issue to you.

-Allison Pikaard

For more information about how the ACLU is taking on the case, check out their website: http://www.aclu-em.org/legal/legaldocket/currentcases/glossipvmissouridepartment.htm

Save money. Take away rights. Walmart.

I have had many life-changing experiences throughout my short 23 years. Meeting the Rev. Rebecca Turner in 2009 was one of those days - Faith Aloud helped me to realize that I don't have to compromise my beliefs. Living for three months in a developing Latin American country was another eye-opener. Ranking among my life-defining moments was meeting Betty Dukes. Unless you've lived under a rock for the past 10 years, her name should ring a bell. She is the named plaintiff in the landmark case, *Dukes v. Walmart*, originally a race discrimination suit but was expanded to include the 1.5 million female Walmart employees and former employees who were passed up on wage increases and job promotions, which were given to male counterparts. Ms. Dukes claimed that Walmart Stores, Inc., violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with its clear and obvious bias against women.

Betty Dukes is the Rosa Parks of our generation, and is exactly the kick in the pants that our country needs. A humble, working-class woman from California, Ms. Dukes was scraping by off the multi-billion dollar megacorporation's meager minimum wage salary. She loved her job, and performed well. There were no legitimate cited reasons from the defendant Walmart that would indicate why Ms. Dukes would not receive a promotion or pay raise. But she didn't. So she fought back

And that woman fought hard. Ms. Dukes made connections with Equal Rights Advocates to represent her, won at trial court level, at the appellate level, and so on- then took her case all the way to the Supreme Court.

Until Walmart reared its ugly, discriminating head and made Ms. Dukes' case into something so far off-base from its original claim. Walmart said that Betty Dukes' case violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its guidelines on class action suits.

Never mind that she was making minimum wage while the Walton family squandered its wealth. Forget that she was denied job promotions, pay increases, and project assignments. And ignore the fact that Walmart uses sweatshops, undercuts competitors, destroys jobs (and lives), and violates EPA and labor guidelines. Instead of owning up to the fact that the Arkansas-based mega-corporation violated multiple federal laws, Walmart's lawyers turn the tables in true lawyer fashion and make the issue about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

The turned-around, newly-dubbed "Walmart v. Dukes" redefined that federal standards for class-action suits, making it harder for the middle-class worker to file suit against his mega-employer.

And the four conservative, anti-women, anti-labor, anti-rights judges agreed with Walmart, and somehow got Kennedy to agree with them.

If you're not fired up yet, you're not paying attention. Your purchase at Walmart has cost a qualified woman a pay raise, a job promotion, and so on. Those bananas that cost you $0.89 just cost a woman her ability to feed her children. You could have spent $1 at a farmer's market or local grocer. Is someone's rights worth the $0.11 deficit? That's what you do, that's how your Walmart purchases, are helping to bring America down.

I love my country. I truly, honestly do. But our nickel-and-diming to save a few bucks at Walmart and other mega-retailers have cost us dearly. I've heard from many conservative friends and family members that "ObamaCare" is cutting jobs. Well guess what. Increasing national healthcare coverage doesn't kill jobs; your shopping at Walmart does.

-Chelsea

Coming out of the Pro-Choice Closet

Last weekend, Chelsea and I packed our purses full of Faith Aloud merchandise and excitedly headed to the 24th annual Equality Day Brunch at the Crown Plaza Hotel. There we munched and mingled with our fellow feminists while we heard rousing speeches from the incredible women who have worked tirelessly to protect our rights. We had the very special opportunity to hear an inspiring speech from Betty Dukes, the woman who sued Walmart, the largest private employer in the world, in the largest class action lawsuit in America's history. Dukes, like the 1.5 million female Walmart employees she is representing, had been denied raises and equal opportunity to promotions simply because she is a woman. Unfortunately, in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court voted in favor of Walmart, but Betty reminded us that the fight is not over. Only someone like Betty can turn a loss into a source of drive and inspiration.

In a strike of fortune, we got the opportunity to talk to Betty Dukes herself. I felt humbled and awed at the prospect of meeting the woman who dared to take on Walmart. Betty is sweet, charming, and feisty (a winning personality trio I've noticed in many of the self-proclaimed feminists I work with). She grasped my hand affectionately and said, "It's so good to see some young people here." She looked around the room and laughed, "So where are all your friends? Where are all the rest of the young people?" She had a point; of the 200 people at the event, Chelsea and I were the youngest by at least 20 years. Although Betty's comment was only meant as a good-natured jab at the aging status of her cohorts, this simple question has been nagging me ever since. Seriously, where are all the young people? Hearing all those amazing women talk about fighting tooth and nail to get the privileges I take for granted made me wonder, what has happened to the women's movement? As I have learned from working at Faith Aloud, there is a wonderful network of pro-choice organizations that work their butts off. But where are the average, everyday pro-choice people?

NARAL's poll from 2010 reports that 59% of young people identify as pro-choice (8 points higher than the average for all ages). Yet why don't I feel like I'm part of the majority on this issue?

Pro-choicers tend to be quiet. Since we support a view that a woman should be trusted to make her own reproductive choices and do what is best for herself and her family, it makes sense that we'd take a laid back approach. We're not standing on street corners shouting at passersby or wielding signs that say, "Women better be able to exercise their reproductive freedom, or else!" ... But maybe we should be.

In the last ten years abortion has become one of the most controversial political issues in our country. And as a result, abortion has become a taboo topic amongst my generation, even for people who support reproductive rights. No one wants to talk about it openly because they don't want to invite the attacks of a very loud and very intimidating anti-choice opposition. Until I started working at Faith Aloud, I myself was largely silent about my feelings on the issue, mostly because I didn't want it to be something that unnecessarily divided me from my pro-life friends. I was also cautious about talking about abortion to people whose political stance I wasn't sure about, for fear that they may start quoting the Bible to me (yes, thank you, I've read it too, you don't need to tell me about it). I agree that it is much more comfortable to just be a quiet supporter of women's rights. However, with the constant barrage of anti-choice bills that keep ending up on the senate floor, and as the religious opposition gets louder and louder, our silence on the topic may end up costing us our freedoms. Therefore, I think it's about time we start coming out of the pro-choice closet, so to speak.

So today, on Equality Day and the 91st anniversary of women gaining the right to vote, I, Allison Pikaard, am ready to shout from the metaphorical rooftops of social media:

I AM PRO-CHOICE AND I AM PROUD!!!

A Call for Integrity

Yesterday, our good friend Rev. Krista Taves headed out to a town hall meeting to talk to Representative Todd Akin about his recent votes to cut funding for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Rep. Akin has been incredibly elusive as of late, refusing on numerous occasions to speak with his constituents about his recent voting record. Rev. Taves was looking forward to finally get the opportunity to meet with the representative in person to voice some of her concerns about the effect of Akin's voting on the community at large.

Upon arrival, however, Krista and the other 100 concerned citizens with her were appalled to be greeted, not by Akin or his staff, but by the police.

Akin claims his reason for calling the cops was that he saw the town hall meeting as a "protest." However, there is a clear difference between a protest and a meeting. The constituents delivered him a peaceful invitation in person, giving him full details about the purpose of the meeting; they simply had concerns they wanted to formally present to their representative.

But since his polarizing statement, "behind liberalism is the hatred of God" back in June, Todd Akin continues to needlessly turn politics into a battleground that seeks to divide people rather than to unite them for the common good. "Rather than respond with dignity and respect to those he represents," says Taves," he chose to treat us as an enemy and to turn us away... This is not the kind of person we should entrust with the privilege and responsibility of serving us."

Simply put, Todd Akin is not doing his job. By refusing to speak with his constituents, he is not fulfilling his duty to represent his district with integrity. The beauty of democracy is that it is meant to give all citizens the opportunity to participate in government through fair representation-- and he is blatantly denying this right. We would like to remind Akin that it is a representative's duty to serve and respect all of his (or her) constituents, even if they hold different values. We certainly don't all have to agree, but like it or not, we do have to work together.

No-cost contraception

The FDA, in accordance with HHS and other medical entities, has announced that as of August 2012, insurance companies will have to provide all forms of medical contraception to the consumer without a co-pay. This is a part of the Health Care Reform plan that is gradually taking effect.

In this move, the FDA has made it clear that contraception is classified as preventive medicine.

This is an important development for all women. 99% of American women use medical contraceptives at some point in their reproductive years. This includes women of every religious persuasion.

Too often, when we hear the word "contraception" we automatically think, "the Pill". But there are many other contraceptive methods approved by the FDA, and for many women the cost of these was prohibitive. Not every woman wants to have to remember to take a pill everyday at the same time, and some women should not use hormones.

Women do not all need the same form of contraception. A woman who does not ever want children may prefer a permanent method of birth control. A woman who is interested in postponing childbirth for a few years may choose a longer-lasting contraception like an IUD. Women who have sex infrequently may prefer a method like the diaphragm.

For the first time, regardless of income, women will truly have "freedom of choice" when it comes to contraception!

That is, unless she happens to work for a Catholic institution! Because already, Catholic groups with health care plans have demanded "religious exemption" from complying with this new mandate. If they only hired Catholics, they might have an argument. But thousands of doctors, nurses, bookkeepers, educators, students, and janitors who are not Catholic will be denied coverage for contraception based upon the archaic, misogynist views of their employers. This is immoral and unjust.

These "religious exemptions" that are being applied to health care around the country need to be abolished by the courts. No institution should be able to force a religious practice upon its employees, clients, or customers. Freedom of religion has always been for the individual, not the corporation. Any individual may abstain from the use of contraception based upon her personal religious beliefs. But to have her rights limited by the religious practices of an employers is wrong.