(Update: My patients are doing well. Also, as a result of the increasing popu­larity of this column the doctor has had to make a few house calls.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Three Stories:

Mildred Loving. On May 2, 2008, Mildred Loving died at age 68. In the landmark case Lov­ing v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the Supreme Court overturned Virginia’s miscegenation laws which prohibited interracial marriages. Loving, a black woman, was basically guilty of falling in love with Richard Loving, a white man.

Read the rest of this entry »

On the eve of November 4, 2008 the world changed, and the words “Yes We Can” and “Yes we Did” resounded amongst the people and the boundaries of the United States, bringing it one step closer to unification and equality. Barack Obama became the first African-American President elect of the United States of America, and the face of America changed for­ever. Although many rejoiced in the his­toric success, California left the country disheartened and hopeless. For many Americans the world as they knew it changed. For many this day signified a step toward progress, financial viability, and healthcare reform. However, in the midst of a historic presidential moment many Americans were denied a funda­mental right in California; the right to marry.

This November, a group of Cali­fornians placed on their Ballot a propo­sition that would amend the California State Constitution and once again define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thus eliminating same-sex marriage rights. The controversy sur­rounding granting basic rights to people who identify as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered (GLBT) has been present since the 1970s. In 2005, the Governor of California vetoed a Bill granting marriage rights to the GLBT community, and left the decision up the Courts. In 2006, several same-sex couples petitioned the Supreme Court of California to review their case. In April 2006, the California Supreme Court decided to consolidate and hear all same-sex marriage cases before the court into In Re Marriage. The Su­preme Court found that equal respect and dignity of marriage is a basic civil right. Furthermore, the Court held that it was unconstitutional to prevent same-sex couples from getting married be­cause GLBT individuals are a protected class, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protec­tions clause of the 14th Amendment.

The success achieved by the In Re Marriage case was short lived, and was an illusory promise to the GLBT com­munity in California. The case created zealous joy, and the hope for equality and access to a legal system founded on the idea that the law is blind. On No­vember 4th while the rest of the country celebrated a step away from racial bi­furcation, the GLBT community in Cal­ifornia and across the nation was disen­chanted with a system that promised and did not deliver. Same-sex rights ended for GLBT couples and Proposition 8 re­versed one of the most important deci­sions in California’s legal history. The basic right to marry the person that you LOVE was swept from under us, and we were left dis­enfranchised once again.

What is it about love that requires such bound­aries and restrictions? Love is an unidentifiable emotion, a hard to describe impression. It is about sacrificing what is personally important to you in order to show an­other that you care. It is thinking about a person daily and rejoicing in the mem­ories created whether small or big. It is getting goose bumps as your loved one walks through the door looking elegant, confident and graceful. Love is know­ing that at the end of the night a warm body lies next to you, comforting your happiness or sorrow. Love is sharing in a dream, a new car, a new restaurant ex­perience, trips to exotic places, sharing thoughts on a new book, political prob­lem or pop culture. But most important­ly, love is an emotion that allows people to enter the most vulnerable of places in a person’s heart and enables people to look deep into each others souls and feel at home.

The voters of California have spoken and their voice suggests that love should be defined as the union between a man and a woman in an ef­fort to maintain the sanctity of family values. I challenge that notion because family values are not based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Family is founded on sharing common grounds, whether it is genetic or sociological. For example, this Thanksgiving I was not able to be home with my immedi­ate family, however, many doors were opened to me and I was able to share a family dinner with an extended family that treated me as their own. A family is not restricted to mean one thing and neither should marriage be.

On November 5th, 2008 I woke up and felt proud to say that Barack Obama was going to be the President of the United States, but was disgusted with California’s decision to abolish same-sex marriage. I felt disgusted because the future of equal rights and equal ac­cess remains uncertain. It reminded me that I continue to be a second class citi­zen and that my ability to love another is neither recognized nor respected. Wak­ing up that morn­ing reminded me of how I felt for a large part of my adolescence, alone fighting an uphill battle. It made me recall that I grew up in a neighborhood where being gay was and con­tinues to be an abomination. It reminded me of those dark days when I felt frightened that someone would find out my secret. A secret that has led me to have many fac­es in the world, a secret that has enabled me to mislead, lie and learn to survive in a world that would rather turn a blind eye than understand differences.

Proposition 8 is the ghost that haunts many GLBT individuals, the reinforcement that we do not share the same legal or social rights as all other Americans. To this day I have never conversed with my parents abut the fact that I am gay, part of me is scared that The main purpose of proposition 8 is division and hate. Love has no boundaries, it is an emotion that allows people to gain a sense of self and open their heart to a pure untainted passion. I urge all of mankind to say no to H8 and yes to love.

Hugo is a 2L and can be reached at fo­rum@valpo.edu.this will cause them to stop loving me, while another part of me believes that nothing will change. Propositions such as 8 handicap me as an individual and do not allow me to live a life free of restraints. How much will the GLBT community have to sacrifice so that we can be seen as people deserving of love, compassion and equal rights?

I have made personal choices in life which I do not regret. but that have been driven by the thought that if I can just prove myself in life, then being gay will not matter. However, these deci­sions suggest that something is wrong with me and that I need to compensate for standing firm and embracing my identity. I know that being gay is not wrong or abnormal as most call it; on the contrary, it takes strength, courage and conviction to know myself and realize that my identity rests on firm grounds. I do not believe that I am any different than anyone else, I hurt, bleed, cry, and LOVE the same way that any­one else does. If your church or your heart tells you that there is something wrong with me because I love a man, I urge you look deep within and ask yourself: is love an emotion that is only reserved for the two people of opposite sex?

The main purpose of proposition 8 is division and hate. Love has no boundaries, it is an emotion that allows people to gain a sense of self and open their heart to a pure untainted passion. I urge all of mankind to say no to H8 and yes to love.

Hugo is a 2L and can be reached at fo­rum@valpo.edu.

Dear Barely Legal,

Due to my weak financial condition and my ill-preparedness for not book­ing a flight when flights were cheaper, I have to spend Thanksgiving here in Valpa-Rain-Snow with whomever else is around. I have never cooked a turkey before, any suggestions?

Read the rest of this entry »

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Read the rest of this entry »

So, this month the topic is gun rights and the Heller decision from both a legal and practical standpoint. Hmmm.

Let me start off by saying that while the Clarence Thomas supporter and I disagree on a lot of things, this topic is one we actually agree on. I haven’t read his opinion yet, so let me qualify that statement, as authors of concurring opinions often do: I can’t say for sure that I agree with his reasoning, but I do agree with his main point – the Heller court definitely got it right. However, I wouldn’t be doing my job if I just agreed with him. I must argue the counterpoint.

Read the rest of this entry »

Finger pointing has characterized much of the past few weeks – for some, the current mortgage crisis is evidence of bad business practices, others believe that the crisis makes evident the need for more regulations, and still others blame credit agencies for extending lines of credit to those who could not afford them. Change. Reform. Change. Reform. It is a shame I can’t convert my ‘95 Wagon into a hybrid that recycles those two words into alternative energy.

In 1901, a short, stout bespectacled man became President – Theodore Roosevelt. He overcame child-hood asthma through a rigorous workout regimen, and he continued that vigorous ethic of hard work throughout his entire life. He fought unethical business practices, while supporting the fundamentals he felt should guide a free market: honesty, sanity, and self restraint. He welcomed the fourth estate, journalism, to pursue its duty in rooting out evil in all facets of society, but lashed against the use of journalism to foster a class war.

has no significance for good, but only for evil. If it seeks to establish a line of cleavage, not along the line which divides good men from bad, but along that other line, running at right angles thereto, which divides those who are well off from those who are less well off, then it will be fraught with immeasurable harm to the body politic. We can no more and no less afford to condone evil in the man of capital than evil in the man of no capital.”

wrongly purports his/her company to be in the black, misleading investors and the public. But I decry that action the same as the act of a man living in Section 8 housing who hangs a flat screen TV from the living room wall, prolonging his dependence upon honorable government aid. I denounce the actions of mortgage companies extending loans to persons not financially able to make the payments. But I denounce the actions of persons seeking mortgages or breaking them while frivolously spending money, unable to separate want from need.

which rolls through society, purging it of its ills. Rather, change is illustrative of sacrifice, of actions that have confronted those evil ethics, and sacrificed for a greater good. Change does not begin with rhetoric, it is entrenched in one’s actions. It is not explained in words, but in the actions that define an individual’s character, whether a community organizer or mayor of a small town, school teacher or stay-at-home mom. Change stems from actions taken and stances upheld. The candidate I plan to vote for in the upcoming election is not someone who I agree with entirely. But he’s left a trail of change – actions taken and stances upheld – that impacted both parties. And more importantly, he has

displayed sacrifice throughout his career, and he would do well to discuss that more. He represents the tail end of a generation that gave so much in lives lost, but also gained in lessons learned. Of earning according to your talents and abilities, and spending it only on what you need. Of graciously taking charity, but yearning to one day give back what you have received. Of not being content to vote present during the bullfights of  life, but rather being ready to jump into the arena.

In November 2003, I received a phone call that changed my life forever. The message said this; Shivers you have been ordered to report to San Antonio, Texas and from there you will be mobilized in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I, along with many others, was sent to help rebuild Iraq. Thoughts began rushing through my head; I had about two weeks to get my life in order before going to the most dangerous place in the world. It was quite frightening.

hit no less than twenty five meters from where I stood guard. Our convoys were attacked. We lost friends. We constantly lived with the fear of not knowing if today would be the day. But there were good times too. We renovated an old movie theater and got to see new releases like Napoleon Dynamite and Team America. Towards the end of the deployment we had Subway, Burger King and Pizza Hut. We even had bottled Frappuccino in the PX (Post Exchange), now tell me that’s not amazing! The year passed, quicker than I thought, and I made it home safely. I returned from Iraq in February 2005, with a new perspective on the war.

Soldiers returning from war are always asked the same question, “what do you think of the war?” and often times that question puts a soldier in a precarious situation. It is your duty to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” however that duty does not preclude you from having your personal thoughts about the war.

being a soldier, conflict arises. I always said to myself I can understand why we are in Afghanistan, but I do not understand why we are in Iraq. It just does not make sense to me. What is the correlation between the two countries? Are there certain policy reasons as to why we are in both countries? I have no idea. What I do know and feel is that we cannot leave now.

ples’ opinion on the war has changed from the beginning of the war to now. However it’s too late to look back now. What is done is done. Now we must look forward to rebuilding what we have essentially destroyed.

Our initial convoy into Iraq took us past a scene of devastation that I thought you only see in movies, burned out cars on the side of the road, demolished buildings, and nonexistent roads. There were children and women who begged for food, but we could not give them any because we were ordered not to. The reason for not feeding people was not because we did not have the resources to do it, but it had the potential to start a riot. To leave now, and completely wash our hands of the entire situation would be like leaving someone to drown when the only thing you need to do is throw them life preserver.

ever I can tell you from firsthand experience that many Iraqi citizens were happy with Saddam Hussein, and there were others who were not happy with him. It’s all relative I suppose. Everyone has an opinion. In my opinion, I would love for every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine to come home now. But, that is not going to happen. As it stands now, we are between a rock and a hard place. I don’t think we should leave right away and completely sever ties, I also don’t believe that more Americans should be put in harm’s way for this war. To fully accomplish our mission we must leave Iraq better off than when we came. Does that mean leading Iraq to a democratic government? I don’t know. Maybe the people of Iraq don’t want a democracy.

Public Defenders: Priceless

Why do I want to be a public defender? Because I do not believe that money should dictate someone’s access to equal justice.

see the flaws in that question by now.

First of all, believe it or not, not everyone who gets arrested is actually guilty. As a matter of fact, not everyone who gets convicted of a crime and sits in jail for 20 years is guilty either. (Just ask the prosecutor in Dallas, Texas). And second, not everyone who gets arrested is a murderer. In fact, murders only account for a small fraction of all violent crimes that take place in this country each year.

that annoying question, I think that part of the answer lies in what John Adams said in his passionate closing argument on behalf of the British soldiers accused of shooting and killing five Americans during the Boston Massacre: Even the most despised criminal in American history is entitled to a legal defense. And as the famous saying goes: It is better to let ten guilty men go free, than to convict one innocent man.

Unfortunately, many prosecutors these days, including the Clarence Thomas supporter who is writing the opposition to this opinion, do not seem to know the difference between guilt and innocence – just ask the prosecutor from the Clarence Thomas supporter’s hometown. Nor do prosecutors seem to care about an accused’s innocence, particularly, I think, because they cannot seem to comprehend the simple concept of “innocent until proven guilty”. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that if prosecutors and cops, because they are indeed on the same dark side, had their way in this country, the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution would probably not exist. Actually, they already pretend as if they don’t exist, but I’m starting to get off track here.

of Texas to scour through old case files in his office. Even so, the act of one so-called “heroic” prosecutor is hardly enough to make up for the damage that has already been done. Therefore, it has largely become the function of public defenders to act as an honorable “police force”, if you will, that stands between the powerful government and the poor little guy, forcing prosecutors to do their jobs currently while honoring all rights of anyone accused of a crime, whether it be murder or jaywalking.But I think that the other part of the answer to that irritating question is this: As a public defender, there are times when you stand by your client in court and rejoice when a verdict of “not guilty” is returned. And, of course, there are times when your client accepts a guilty plea, or has to listen to a jury read off a verdict of “guilty.” You may

be satisfied in knowing that you helped secure your client the best plea agreement possible, or you may feel that you weren’t cut out for criminal defense and that you let your client down when he or she is taken into custody after being found guilty. But I know that this much is true: When you’ve done everything that you can do, and things don’t work out as well as you had hoped, but the client still turns to you, shakes your hand, looks you in the eye and says, “Thank you for giving me the time of day and giving me the trial no one else wanted me to have,” it makes all the difference in the world. It makes my career of defending the rights of “all those guilty people, all those murderers” worthwhile, and my very costly license to practice law…well…priceless.

Peoples’ reactions are always interesting to me whenever I tell them that I want to work in public service. People get equally as perplexed when I say that I would like to be a prosecutor. I’m not sure whether it’s the sympathetic defendant, or the idea of overzealous police officers scouring the streets for people to pick up, but something turns people off of about prosecutors. Some people chalk it up to me being from Texas. Surely everyone knows how tough they are on criminals in Texas. Hell, I’ve even had a professor tell me that I was on some Clarence Thomas B.S. I’ve done an externship with the

Lake County Prosecutor’s Office and I’ve also worked at the DA’s office back home in Denton County, Texas. I thoroughly enjoyed both of those experiences. There are two incidents that helped shape my desire to work for a prosecutor. One incident happened while I was working on an assignment at the office

On another occasion, I worked on an extradition motion for a rape suspect 

who had fled the country right after the judge had denied the request to have his passport revoked as part of his bail. I think many times people mistake the suspect as being the sympathetic figure in the legal system. The suspect is seen as someone who might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Perhaps it’s also the idea that sometimes the crimes a suspect is accused of arguably shouldn’t be crimes in the first place.

Prosecutors are entrusted with the responsibility of doing justice. Part of doing justice is making sure that those who commit crimes are punished. The more satisfying part of prosecuting crimes is when you help the real victims of the crimes. I think about being able to provide closure to the sister of a murdered brother. It won’t bring him back, but it will certainly alleviate the pain of knowing that the person who took her brother from her will be punished. Maybe our society is better served by seeing that those who take advantage of judicial technicalities are ultimately brought back to be held accountable for their crimes.

It would be irresponsible for me to not admit that there is the potential for innocent persons to be convicted, but it would be equally irresponsible for defense attorneys to deny that guilty persons are going free. It is how the system works. We’re two sides of the same coin. Sometimes prosecutors are the bad guys and sometimes defense attorneys are the slime balls. It’s an honorable system that needs good people on both sides. I just feel bad for the people that will be standing on the opposite side of me.