Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, Any Same-sex couple can now file joint tax returns, have the same names on their passports and Social Security cards..... The couple also wants their driver’s licenses to reflect their new last name and complete the same equal level of happiness in making a public statement about who they choose to spend the rest of their lives with. Please support me in letting our officials in charge know that this must change and we as equals support this, no I mean insist this CHANGE sooner than later.

I am starting this Petition because VETERANS exposed to AGENT ORANGE herbicides are being treated differently in regards to COMPENSATION AND MEDICAL CARE AND FUTURE DISEASES CAUSED BY THAT EXPOSURE. All veterans exposed to AGENT ORANGE must be treated equally as far as any laws currently ACTIVE like the AGENT ORANGE ACT of 1991 and the NEHMER LAW. No veteran exposed either presumptively or directly were unaware of any consequences of that exposure there fore EQUAL TREATMENT must be afforded to all exposed to THIS POISONOUS CHEMICAL.

Society speaks for itself. This need not replace prayer for many, but a 'Moment of Gratitude' allows each individual the freedom to reflect to whomever or whatever they feel is the need, while also, not just teaching to the young, but reminding us all the importance of gratitude. Susan

I request that the decision to dismiss me from ROTC be overturned and as a consequence the Department of the Army reinstate me as an ROTC cadet at the University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez, so that I can receive my commission as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Army. I did not receive my rights to Due Process in the course of the investigation and board proceedings regarding the incident that made the basis of this action and that the punishment of disenrollment is overly harsh considering my stellar performance in ROTC. The disenrollment process at the University of PR ROTC battalion occurred approximately one month before my anticipated graduation and commissioning date. The Assistant Professor of Military Science (APMS) who was tasked with conducting an impartial inquiry into a single alleged instance of misconduct subsequently and surreptitiously included twelve (12) additional allegations of purported misconduct for the board’s consideration after then I, who was unrepresented by counsel, had been notified of only a single allegation of disrespect to an officer as the reason for separation. The Board subsequently assembled an incoherent and cursory record showing no consideration of any matters on my behalf. It is both unjust and in error to dismiss me from ROTC immediately prior to my commissioning date based on false allegations with little or no consideration given to my record of performance and ability to complete the remaining requirements to commission. As such, the separation should be overturned and I should be reinstated in ROTC. I joined the enlisted Reserve ranks in 2009 and performed drills with my reserve unit in addition to participating in ROTC. I took to the discipline and rigors well, excelling at physical training (PT), receiving accolades for improving swiftly at PT and volunteering to participate in the Ranger Challenge program. The next year I successfully completed Airborne School in September 2009 at Fort Benning, Georgia and the following summer in 2010 I earned my Air Assault badge. In my third year in the ROTC-SMP program I was awarded the Army Achievement Medal by my unit for my strength and determination in achieving a perfect score of 300 points on the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), the highest score in my reserve unit. In the summer of 2011 I successfully completed the Leadership, Development, and Assessment Course (LDAC) required in order for all ROTC cadets commission as officers. In February 2012 I experienced what would turn out to be a career-altering disagreement with a Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) at his reserve unit. In addition to losing drill pay, I received a Letter of Reprimand (LoR) in March 2012 from my reserve unit for the incident. I filed a rebuttal to the LoR and for the first time was able to render a sworn statement detailing what I went through on the day at drill duties, though there is no evidence in the record that anyone at the unit or my ROTC battalion considered the information I brought forth. On 2 May 2012 the Disenrollment Board convened and found that I had committed misconduct by “disrespecting a superior officer.” The only evidence that the Board considered was my responses to their questions and the documents provided by the PMS. Inexplicably, my cadet record also includes a series of duplicate disenrollment board memoranda dated in June 2012 that appear to indicate I waived myright to a board that had already occurred. It is unclear what information was provided to U.S. Army Cadet Command because the disenrollment decision memorandum from Cadet Command cites “frequent absences from military training,” and notably does not mention “disrespect to a superior officer,” as the basis for the action. The problems with the Board process are evident in the Cadet Command determination to disenroll Cadet Ruiz for “absences from training.” I was never notified in the Board process that this is what I had to defend against because this allegation is not contained in the 9 April 2012 board notification memorandum. It begs the question, what documentation did Cadet Command receive? It appears the disenrollment action may have been erroneously based on the June 2012 memoranda submitted by the PMS, which are dated after the Board’s recommendation came to him. Of note, the June 2012 paperwork appears to represent that I waived my right to a board entirely, and yet one was held in May 2012 and it did not find that the misconduct consisted of “absences from training.” The only remedy remaining to correct this injustice is to set aside the disenrollment action.

What is adoption? When a child is adopted, the adoption ends the legal relationship between that child and his or her birth parents and creates a new and legal family relationship with the adoptive parents. There are many different kinds of adoptions: Private, Interstate, Public Agency, and Family Adoptions. Then you have what is called an open or closed adoption. This is what tells how much the birth parents and adoptive parents share information about the child. Section 63-9-350: Withdrawal of Consent or Relinquishment states that the withdrawal of any consent or relinquishment of rights can only be undone by the order of the court. One must prove that the court finds that the withdrawal is in the best interests of the child and that the consent or relinquishment was not given voluntarily or was obtained under duress or through coercion. In South Carolina after the relinquishment of parental rights is signed you cannot go back and change your mind or any sort. Twenty-eight (28) states have laws providing a waiting period before relinquishment of parental rights is irrevocable. Multiple states have a set up time frame whereas the relinquishment of parental rights form may not be signed until so many days or hours after giving birth. South Carolina adoption laws need to be changed in regarding the time frame of a waiting period after signing the form. At least thirty (30) days should be in affect after signing relinquishment of parental rights before the form becomes irrevocable. Why is this so important to me? On August 18, 2012 I gave birth to a beautiful baby girl named MacKenzie Grace. I was unaware of the pregnancy until I got to the hospital; I thought I had food poisoning. My parents had just dropped me off at college earlier that day this was my first time away from home, I did not know anyone, I was alone, and young (18 as of April). Within the three days I was at the hospital they had me sign a bunch of forms one of these forms were a relinquishment of rights form. This form took my rights as a mother away. I was unaware of the effects of signing this form and was unaware of any of the papers I was signing. My three day's in the hospital were 'blurry dreams', I am unable to remember much about those days. I started fighting for my child immediately after becoming aware of what happened. After three months I was granted a temporary hearing. At this hearing I was granted visitation for four hours once a week. I had to drive from my home three hours away and rent a hotel room for four hours all at my expense. September 5, 2013 we had our final hearing; it was a two day trial. The judge ended up making his verdict almost three weeks later. He sided with the people who were fighting me for my daughter. They will now be able to adopt her since I lost and will not be able to contest their adoption. I now need to raise money to get to the next court which is the Appellate court. This court will be the next action to fight for my daughter.

I am Native American Mexican I know about the injustice that Mexicans have suffered in history and I am tired of the continuation of denial from the self proclaim elite that continue to oppress and dishonor our people.

The bullying (of students, parents and staff) has gone on far too long, and the Board of Education won't do anything about it. In fact, they do it during board meetings! While a FREE workplace bullying assessment WON'T fix everything, it is a START. It means the Board of Education is LISTENING TO THE COMMUNITY - a community that is deeply hurting from rampant bullying - not just of teachers but of parents, students and other employees.

Imagine that you were in charge of designing your city’s parking for people with disabilities permit program. You’re doing this because you care about the plight of physically or mentally handicapped people and empathize with the challenges they face each and every day of their lives: you’re proud to do something that will make their lives just a little bit easier. In the interest of streamlining the experience – and because you have faith in the honesty and integrity of people – you decide not to require permit applicants to furnish actual proof that they have a disability let alone one that would actually benefit from a shorter distance to a destination: you trust that applicants need the wheelchair they’re sitting in or truly are on the Autism Spectrum. You’re not naïve enough to think that there won’t be less scrupulous people who take advantage of your kindness and generosity, but at the same time you recognize that the bad apples make up only a small percentage of all the applicants and what you’re doing helps makes the lives of so many people better even if just a little bit. Now imagine that a news outlet catches wind of a particular set of scammers who not only gloat about how they gamed the system but also do it with a distasteful amount of pride. Naturally readers are upset at the reckless abandon with which these jerks cheated their way to a parking permit. Beyond the need to handle the public relations issue, you want to find a way to discourage people from abusing these privileges. So how do you go about doing this? One way would be to strip away the benefits: if there isn’t much of an advantage to have the permit, then it won’t be worth the scammers’ while to go through all the subterfuge to obtain one. The flip side of this approach is that the exponentially larger population of people for whom this permit makes a real difference is also affected, and they’re the people you were trying to help in the first place. The more logical strategy is to be more ardent in vetting the people who are applying for the permit. It’s not beyond the realm of reason to request that people who want to participate in the program make a tiny amount of effort to provide documentation of their very real need for such accommodations. Disney Parks & Resorts recently announced that, in response to the justified criticism and outrage from their loyal fans who read a New York Post report earlier in the year that “wealthy Manhattan moms” hired a disabled guide from Dream Tours Florida at a rate of $130 per hour in order to be able to use Walt Disney World’s Guest Assistance Card to bypass the lines for attractions, they would cancel the GAC program effective October 9 in favor of a new Disabled Assistance System that will work much like the current Fastpass program that all park guests are entitled to use. This is the same approach used in the first option from my hypothetical scenario. Disney is stripping away the benefits of the program so that those with more money than morals have no incentive to pay a handicapped person to pretend to be their friend and those who have no qualms about renting a wheelchair to appear to be physically challenged gain no time saving advantages in exchange for having to sit in that chair all day long. At first glance, this seems like a great solution to resolve the issue at hand. Indeed, many people who have endured the often excruciatingly long lines at Walt Disney World and Disneyland applauded this as a fair compromise that levels the playing field as it were for non-handicapped people. “Why should people who are disabled get to experience more attractions than the rest of us?” they ask. “Everyone should get to go on the same number of rides!” they declare. The thing is that the Guest Assistance Card is not – and has never been – about allowing those who are physically or mentally disabled to cram a vacation’s worth of fun into a single day at a Disney park. The reason that many of these guests need the program in the first place is because they are unable to move as fast as, stand for as long a time as or tolerate as much waiting in line as a typical person. While a more able bodied guest could probably enjoy the park for a good eight or nine hours – if not from opening to closing – a person who needs the GAC program likely is not going to have the stamina or capacity to do that: very often the time savings is key to being able to experience as much as a person who isn’t handicapped. My son Alexander is a 6-year-old boy on the Autism Spectrum. He has a condition known as Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, which in his case includes a severe cognitive impairment that almost guarantees that beyond never being able to learn things as effectively as most other children Alexander will assuredly never be able to understand why he cannot get on the giant plastic representation of his favorite flying elephant right away, why he has to return in an hour when said elephant is right there in front of him, what an hour even is, and why when he does return he still needs to wait in line some more. Furthermore, his coping mechanism for sensory overload of sights and sounds (in this case not just from the park itself but from other guests as well) is very often an exasperated meltdown that involves some combination of screaming, kicking, running, rolling on the floor, and lashing out, but don’t mistake this for the actions of a spoiled child. With the Disabled Assistance System, we likely would only be able to enjoy a small handful of rides and shows at Walt Disney World in a day. Alexander doesn’t have the endurance to be able to last a full day in that sort of environment, and we unfortunately wouldn’t have the option to stand in other lines to enjoy additional attractions while waiting for a reserved time slot like people who can utilize the Fastpass system do. The playing field certainly wouldn’t be level for us or almost any other family...

Students were allowed to call an African American child the "N" word and tease him regarding his perceived sexual orientation. The child was subsequently attacked by one of the harassers and fought to defend himself. The school's response was to discipline the child who had been harassed and attacked and chose to not discipline his attacker at all. None of the harassers were disciplined for violating the child's civil rights even when the parent made a complaint to school officials.

Persons with disabilities aren't able to enter Congressman Cleaver's Kansas City office without first notifying him that We're coming. Whereas other members of the public are able to stop in and speak with the Congressman or his staff anytime the office is open.

University of Maryland prides itself on diversity and acceptance the school should not have a major campus landmark named after a president that did not believe in that diversity. While the separate but equal mindset was acceptable when the stadium was named, times have changed. In respect to the students of all nationalities a new name should be selected.

From its inception, Sesame Street has mirrored the cultural diversity of its viewers. Consequently, its young viewers can find reflections of their own faces and families on the show. This inclusion helps the children feel valued and included. Over the past 3 years, I’ve observed that the customers at Sesame Place seem to come from similarly diverse backgrounds. However the workers at the park’s restaurants and maintenance departments appear to be mostly black. Conversely, ticket booth and Welcome Center workers and parade members appear to be 99.999% white. Children learn their sense of identity not only from their families, but also from society. They need to see people of all colors working at all types of jobs so that they can understand that their own potential has no limits. Children learn from Sesame Street. Unfortunately, it appears the park is teaching the wrong message.