Monday, November 10, 2008

Local Groups To Protest For Equal Marriage

Posted by Media Release

Cincinnati, Ohio—A protest in favor of equal marriage will occur at Cincinnati’s City Hall on Saturday, November 15 at 1:30 p.m. Local students, activists, and community members lead this event as part of a day of national protests in reaction to the passage of Proposition 8 in California, re-banning equal marriage in that state. 

The local movement is being organized by Cameron Tolle, a junior at Xavier University and Vice President of the Xavier LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-identified, queer/questioning) Alliance, with the assistance of students from the University of Cincinnati and Miami University, along with several community members. Organizers state that the goal is not to overturn Proposition 8, but to create a national movement and create awareness for the effects that anti-gay legislation has on the local community. The protest will occur in conjunction with other groups from around the country at the same time as part of an initiative launched by JoinTheImpact.com; local organizers are in contact with many of these other coalitions as a way of building unity. In the first two days of organization, almost 300 people have stated they will be in attendance; 500 people are expected to attend the event.

“Last week, voters in California, Florida, Arizona and Arkansas allowed hate to infiltrate into our political system and classified the LGBTQ community as second-class citizens,” Tolle says. “We cannot sit back and watch this happen. We have to let our communities know that we oppose hatred under the law in all forms. In Ohio, we live in a state that has already declared inequality by banning equal marriage and failing to include crimes against LGBTQ individuals under state hate crime laws. We cannot let this hatred under the law perpetuate any further.”

JoinTheImpact.com is a national initiative that was created in reaction to the anger felt by many who believe in equal marriage rights after the passage of California’s Proposition 8. It is a loose coalition of activists and organizations who seek to bring positive change in the fight for equality. The movement, less than a week old, is drawing hundreds of thousands of hits a day to its web sites. Almost 40 localities have announced protests in correlation with the initiative. More are expected to join in the coming week.

According to the website, the goal is to “come together for debate, for public recognition, and for LOVE! ... [to] move as one full unit, on the same day, at the same hour, and...show the United States of America that we too are UNITED CITIZENS EQUAL [sic] IN MIND, BODY, SPIRIT AND DESERVING OF FULL EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW.”

Local organizers are hopeful that the protest will spur discussion and movement towards positive change in the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana region. Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana all currently have laws banning equal marriage rights; Ohio and Kentucky have constitutional amendments, passed by voters in 2004, to the same effect.

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

cincysuz says:
10 Nov 2008  at  08:50 pm | #

Be on the lookout for Tom Brinkman, like a cartoon character with his pack of do-badders, trying to further the cause of discrimination whereever they find it.

Vast says:
10 Nov 2008  at  09:28 pm | #

Keith Olbermann made a great special comment tonight.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27563663

says:
10 Nov 2008  at  11:24 pm | #

You know who else supports gay marriage bans? Bill Clinton, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden and President Obama. Obama wouldn’t even take a picture with Gavin Newsome because he supports gay marriage.

says:
11 Nov 2008  at  05:31 am | #

It seems to me the truly Republican thing to do (in the spirit of small and less intrusive government) would be to get out of the business of licensing marriages.  As such, the State has no business getting involved with who marries whom.

cincysuz says:
11 Nov 2008  at  06:12 pm | #

I’m sorry Justin, I forgot how sensitive you are on the subject of Tom Brinkman. Any criticism of him goes right to your heart and you’re ready to defend his right to attack f**s with every bit of vitriole in your bag of tricks. One of the oddest local relationships you’ll find. I won’t go over the petitions Brinkman circulated, or his lawsuits to try and keep Miami U employees from securing rights for their partners. You probably know better than I the efforts your friend he’s taken to make the lives of gays miserable and in fact dangerous. But ultra-progressive dude that you are, you still defend him. Yes, an odd relationship indeed.

says:
11 Nov 2008  at  07:03 pm | #

cincysuz, I’ve never defended Tom Brinkman’s bigotry against gays or anyone else’s for that matter. And I’ve never voted for a candidate that would try to prevent gays and lesbians from having full equality under the law (gay marriage). But you did in 2004 and in 2008, didn’t you?

Both parties stand against our people’s civil liberties in this country and I think it’s disgusting. The best Clinton-Gore could do is don’t ask don’t tell in the military. I guess he thought bringing the rules from his own marriage into the military was good enough.

cincysuz says:
11 Nov 2008  at  08:05 pm | #

See. I rest my case. Sins of omission aren’t desirable and they’re certainly disappointing because one hopes that good people won’t stand silent when an injustice occurs. But actual attacks, as Brinkman does, are despicable and call for swift condemnation. You pretend not to see the difference when it comes to Brinkman who has made a name, career and business of making gays lives unsafe. With all your jabbering about backroom deals and underhanded dealings, one wonders what prompts the unholy alliance between Brinkman/Finney/COAST and the Beacon.

says:
11 Nov 2008  at  09:28 pm | #

See. I rest my case. Not only do you Democrats vote against gay marriage, but you vote for bipartisan wars and then have the nerve to blame us for these things. Your delusional rants make no sense. Brinkman is term limited and out of office. I’ve never voted for him or helped any anti-gay efforts, but you support a party that denies gays equal rights. You should be ashamed of your party. My candidate supports gay rights and yours doesn’t. Will you continue to stand silent while your party takes unjust positions on human rights issues?

I’m all for honest debates about different issues, but your constant attempts to pretend I’m anti-gay just show how pathetic you really are. We stopped the unholy alliance between Pepper, Leis, Portune and Deters for your bipartisan super sized jail tax. Get over it already!

I’m happy to denounce COAST’s anti-gay bigotry. Will you denounce the Democratic Party’s anti-gay bigotry?

Bearman says:
12 Nov 2008  at  06:22 am | #

And I’ve never voted for a candidate that would try to prevent gays and lesbians from having full equality under the law (gay marriage)

...but you support a party that denies gays equal rights.

I just have to ask this (and not sarcastically).  So Justin you have NEVER voted for a Democrat or Republican in ANY race??  If not, I have to applaud your conviction.

says:
12 Nov 2008  at  12:37 pm | #

I’ve never voted for a candidate that has supported a gay marriage ban. I would vote for Dennis Kucinich, but that doesn’t mean that I support his party. It’s an anti-gay, pro-war corporate party. I didn’t vote for Kerry-Edwards and obviously not Bush-Cheney. Obama-Biden are against gay marriage too, aren’t they? Bearman, do you denounce the Democratic Party’s anti-gay bigotry? Or is that acceptable to you?

Bearman says:
12 Nov 2008  at  10:48 pm | #

I denounce all bigotry.  I don’t vote for a party, I vote for a candidate.  I don’t vote for one issue, I look at where a candidate stands on an entire platform.  I have voted for Republicans, Democrats and Independants.  Sometimes I vote for the best person, sometimes I hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two bad ones, and sometimes I skip that race all together.

cincysuz says:
13 Nov 2008  at  05:29 pm | #

Where does Smitherman and the NAACP stand on gay marriage?

says:
13 Nov 2008  at  09:12 pm | #

Will you denounce the Democratic Party’s anti-gay bigotry?

cincysuz, I’ll answer your question after you’ve answered mine. Or should I take your refusal to answer as a no?

LG says:
14 Nov 2008  at  09:04 am | #

Speaking for myself, I support Ohio’s gay marriage ban based on my own religious convictions.  I’m not against gay people who want to be together having the same rights as people who are married...they deserve the rights of every citizen who happens to be married (the ability to see each other in the hospital, insurance coverage, the ability to pass on assets, etc).  Gay people making a commitment to one another just shouldn’t be called marriage in my opinion.  The people of Ohio did the right thing by banning same sex marriages.

LG says:
14 Nov 2008  at  09:08 am | #

Obama is against gay marriage and rightly so.  Obama is for civil unions and for the ability of gay couples to have the same rights as heterosexual married couples.  Is it about gay people having the same rights as heterosexual people or is it about gay people wanting to call their unions marriage?  I don’t understand the big deal if gay people are afforded the same rights as heterosexual people through civil unions.

says:
14 Nov 2008  at  11:39 am | #

LG, if those are your religious convictions then you shouldn’t marry a gay person and that is your right. However, banning gay people from doing what everybody else can do is discrimination. Marriage is not just about religion, it is a legal status that atheist can participate in.

There are some Reverends that are willing to marry gay people and there are gay people that want to be married. It is wrong to deny them the same rights as everyone else. If somebody had a religious belief that said black people couldn’t marry white people, that wouldn’t make it OK for government to ban interracial marriages, would it? You are imposing your religious beliefs on others.

I have a friend in Chicago that went and got married at the court house. It was a marriage, not a civil union. It had nothing to do with religion. Elvis impersonators can marry drunk people like Britney Spears in the middle of the night in Las Vegas, that’s not religious. Should that be considered marriage or civil unions and given that we have seperation of church and state who should decide?

says:
14 Nov 2008  at  11:43 am | #

Obama is against gay marriage and rightly so.  Obama is for civil unions and for the ability of gay couples to have the same rights as heterosexual married couples.

It is wrong for Obama to support unequal treatment under the law. If gay people can’t marry the person that they are in love with and in a committed relationship then by definition they don’t have the same rights. You all are engaging in bigotry and should rethink your position.

says:
14 Nov 2008  at  11:54 am | #

cincysuz, you are an anti-gay bigot and you engage in political bigotry against independents that have the audacity to stand up for basic human rights while your corporate owned unDemocratic Party denies gays and lesbians equal treatment under the law.

You and your party support imperial occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Palestine that are crushing innocent men women and children. You and your party support bailouts for corporate crooks and the racist war on the poor known as the Drug War. These are the same policies that the Republican Party supports.

LG says:
14 Nov 2008  at  02:54 pm | #

JJ, I believe in the separation of church and state.  Marriage = church and civil unions = state.  If the basis of the argument for gay marriage is having the same rights at heterosexual married couples, then what’s the difference in whether you call the status a civil union for a gay couple and marriage for a heterosexual couple?  We can agree that rights should not be denied...where we disagree is what we call it for a heterosexual couple versus a homosexual couple and that’s fine.  I think you will agree that democracy happened with the constitutional ban on gay marriage in Ohio and on Prop. 8 in California.  The issue was placed on the ballot through a petition and people voted on the issue.  People can protest all they want...the Supreme Court won’t go against the people on this one.

says:
14 Nov 2008  at  04:04 pm | #

Really, LG?  Marriage = Church?

So, then, you have no problem if someone who attends a Unitarian Universalist church wants to get married?

I’m an ordained minister licensed by the State of Ohio to perform marriages.  Can I “marry” gay people, according to you?  Just curious.

says:
14 Nov 2008  at  04:57 pm | #

If gay people have the same rights, why do we need to call it a different name? Again, you don’t have to get married in a church, atheists can do it in a court house. Therefore, Marriage doesn’t = church and gay marriage bans = bigotry.

cincysuz says:
14 Nov 2008  at  06:34 pm | #

I have family members that were married in Oregon and California. Their marriages were invalidated. One of the couples will celebrate their 34th year together next month. I don’t know many relationships that solid, gay or straight. They’re no longer young and should be able to live their dream. The road hasn’t been hard, especially 3 decades ago. The other relationship is rocky--but so are straight relationships.

I belong to a number of groups that lobby politicians on gay issues. I give support financially and through writing letters, making calls, signing petitions. Through these groups I have already let Barack Obama know, as a person that supported his campaign, my expectations that he reconsider his position on gay marriage. More than 100,000 other people thus far have expressed the same views. I take my direction for those in the movement. We’ll see what happens once he’s in office.

The Dean has said he doesn’t support a woman’s right to choose. I don’t know how you feel about that Justin. Obama does support a woman’s right to choose. There’s no candidate that I agree with 100%, that’s why it’s important to stay organized and active. Obama has never circulated petitions against gays or led the charge for discrimination against them, or anyone else to my knowledge, like Tom Brinkman. That’s his life’s work. Don’t pretend there’s no difference.

LG - Would you agree that people who aren’t given full rights shouldn’t have to pay full taxes? I think that would be only right. Half the rights, half the tax obligation. And Proposition 8 in California was successful because of religious bigots many of whom make a mockery of marriage themselves--divorce, multiple children without benefit of marriage, revolving door relationships.

LG says:
15 Nov 2008  at  01:07 am | #

Dean, according to the majority of people in Ohio (I’m included in that majority) & the law, no one can marry gay people.

JJ, you want to call the majority of Americans who don’t agree w/gay marriage bigots.  That statement is simply not based on fact.  Americans have the right to petition the government and ban whatever they deem inappropriate, all the way down to smoking in public places. 

Cincysuz...civil unions & marriages, in my opinion, should have the same rights.  The only difference should be in name alone.  Homosexual relationships are unnatural relationships...they can’t even create children.  Homosexual commitments are not the same as heterosexual commitments and therefore cannot be called the same thing.

LG says:
15 Nov 2008  at  01:13 am | #

LG - Would you agree that people who aren’t given full rights shouldn’t have to pay full taxes?

Cincysuz...how silly is this question?  So gay people deserve a tax cut for being gay?  LOL You cannot be serious…

LG says:
15 Nov 2008  at  01:15 am | #

One last thing Cincysuz...Obama’s not changing his position just like Bill Clinton did not and even signed the “Defense of Marriage Act”.  So if you think Obama is going to reconsider his position on gay marriage, I hope you’re not holding your breath.  Even if he doesn’t, you’ll STILL vote for him in 4 years anyway!

says:
15 Nov 2008  at  04:53 am | #

L.G.

Nice job TOTALLY sidestepping the issue.

Earlier, you said:


JJ, I believe in the separation of church and state. 

Then, you said:

Dean, according to the majority of people in Ohio (I’m included in that majority) & the law, no one can marry gay people.

Being in the majority has nothing to do with being in the truth, or being correct.  You said you believe in the separation of church and state.  Then you said that, according to you and the law, no one can marry gay people.  That law, which you support, is an intrusion on the religious beliefs of some.  It is an example of the intermingling of church and state.

So which is it, L.G?  Should the church and state be intermingled, or separated?  You cannot support both at the same time.

says:
15 Nov 2008  at  12:14 pm | #

JJ, you want to call the majority of Americans who don’t agree w/gay marriage bigots.

Yes! The fact is that they don’t have to marry gay people, they can marry whoever they want, but they want to prevent others who love each other from marrying whomever they choose.

A majority of American voters were once against freeing slaves and giving women the right to vote. The country isn’t as bigoted as it used to be, but there’s still more work to be done.

Americans have the right to petition the government and ban whatever they deem inappropriate, all the way down to smoking in public places.

Smoking harms other people. If you’re smoking at a table next to me I have to breathe the same air. If you’re getting ga ga over some dude it doesn’t affect me any more than if you were ga ga over some lady.


So if you think Obama is going to reconsider his position on gay marriage, I hope you’re not holding your breath.  Even if he doesn’t, you’ll STILL vote for him in 4 years anyway!

I agree that Obama won’t show any leadership on this issue and won’t change anything unless he’s forced to. Cincysuz has voted against the corporate Democrats in the past including Gore’s running mate and Obama’s self-described “mentor” Joe Lieberman. People do sometimes find a breaking point. So far it looks like Obama is replacing the Bush administration with the Clinton administration.

There’s nothing like putting the Democrats in charge to show people that there’s no difference. Just look at the local level.

cincysuz says:
15 Nov 2008  at  03:24 pm | #

LG - did you really mean this “..Homosexual relationships are unnatural relationships...they can’t even create children.” You sound like a third-grader and a bigot of the first order. Another reason to keep the NAACP at arms length because you represent yourself as the top spokesman. You don’t see the irony?

Can’t create children? Should infertile people, old people, people that don’t want children be barred from marrying? Maybe we should rescind marrying rights for those that do “naturally” create children but can’t or won’t take care of them, abuse them, pawn them off on everyone else or the state to raise. Look at just local cases over the past year of parents burning, tying up, starving, murdering, shaking, raping, leaving to die in cars, abandoning, and the ever-popular giving the baby to the boyfriend du jour to use as a punching bag. I’ll bet you 99% of those abuse cases are by heterosexual people that could legally (but usually don’t bother) marry and created those children “naturally” which I guess according to you would include acquiring them from foster care for the purpose of getting a big fat check. That all sounds pretty unnatural to me. Give me a nice, established, gay parent any day to many of the half-wit nutcases that drop a baby a year, “naturally” with not a clue of how to take care of or provide for them.

I don’t know what Obama will do. But, I will continue to align with the groups that are putting on pressure to recognize gay unions with all the same rights as everyone else. I’m doing the same on other issues. Diverse coalitions, you know.

And yes I’m serious. If people don’t have full rights, they shouldn’t have to pay full taxes. Not because they’re gay, but because they don’t have rights. I hope it catches on.

says:
15 Nov 2008  at  04:37 pm | #

cincysuz is right this time, L.G.

Unnatural?  What supreme and all-knowing wisdom do you have to understand the checks-and-balances of nature?

Look, there are nearly 7 billion people on this planet.  If someone wants to get involved in a relationship that prevents children from being created, I say that sounds like a great idea. 

Anyway, if preventing the creation of children is wrong, I guess you’ve never used a condom.  But maybe you’re Catholic.  Nevertheless, shall we ban marriage for condom wearers?  What about people who use birth control?  What about men with vasectomies?

No, L.G., you are not qualified to be the final authority on what is natural.  Besides, I think you’d be hard pressed to show how anything that happens in nature is “unnatural.”

Your arguments are religious arguments - and I dare you to prove otherwise. 

And I’m still waiting to your response to my previous statements.

cincysuz says:
15 Nov 2008  at  07:21 pm | #

Well thank you Dean. It’s a strange and giddy feeling to be on the same side. We should do it more often!

says:
15 Nov 2008  at  08:31 pm | #

Hey Dean, what do you think about Obama’s and the Corporate Democrat’s support of gay marriage bans? Would you care to denounce them?

LG says:
16 Nov 2008  at  10:57 am | #

I can be in the minority on this one here on the Beacon.  I think it’s great to be in that camp from time to time...that is what’s good about living in a democracy.  People can decide what’s acceptable and voice their viewpoints.

Dean, I think I answered your question and addressed your point.  Can you marry gay people in your church?  No.  Why?  Because it’s against the law of the State of Ohio, the entity that has licensed you to perform marriages. The State has defined marriage.  To marry individuals who do not fall within that definition would be a violation of the terms & conditions of that license. I’m not up on the doctrine of the Univeralist Church but the law of the land is what it is.

As it relates to the separation of church and state, to ban gay marriage is not intermingling the two.  The State recognizes marriage as an institution created by the church.  Marriage was not created by the State.  The State has created a way for gay people to become involved in lasting relationships and have all the rights that heterosexual relationships have.  That vehicle is through civil unions.  It’s actually gays who want to be married who are attempting to mix church and state.

Cincysuz...I meant every word I typed. I’ve not called you any names and I’m dissapointed that you cannot defend your viewpoint without doing so. Calling me a third-grader and bigot of the first order does not help your argument.  Further, to hold any organization accountable for my personal views would be irresponsible on your part.  I’m speaking for me and me alone.  What irony are you referring to?

If people disagree with the gay marriage ban, create a petition, gather signatures and put the issue on the ballot for the citizens of the State of Ohio to vote on again.  Gathering on City Hall’s steps won’t change the law.  75% of the citizens in the State of Ohio voted to ban gay marriage.  There are a lot of minds to change. 

I also think it’s laughable for some people to compare the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s to Gay Marriage.  Prop. 8 was supported by almost 80% of African-Americans in the State of California according to exit polling.  That number was about the same in the State of Ohio in 2004 when gay marriage was banned here.  That’s not because black people are bigots...it’s because black people view marriage as being an institution created by the church.

says:
16 Nov 2008  at  12:13 pm | #

Can you marry gay people in your church?  No.  Why?  Because it’s against the law of the State of Ohio, the entity that has licensed you to perform marriages.

LG, Jim Crow and slavery used to be the law. That doesn’t make it right.


Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.-Dr. King

Separate is not equal. Civil unions aren’t equal to marriage. It is a second class status.

As it relates to the separation of church and state, to ban gay marriage is not intermingling the two.  The State recognizes marriage as an institution created by the church.  Marriage was not created by the State.

If it is up to church’s then there isn’t a separation of church and state. There are church’s-such as the Dean’s-that believe that God has empowered him to marry gay people, straight people and atheist. Why is his church being discriminated against?

Your argument falls flat on its face when we have atheists being married in the state of Ohio. Just because you can get married in a church doesn’t mean that all marriages have anything to do with God or religion.

Just because it is the law doesn’t make it right or just. In this case, the law is an ass.

Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.-Dr. King

I also think it’s laughable for some people to compare the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s to Gay Marriage.

This is absolutely a civil and human rights issue. There have been many times in history when those that have been oppressed become the oppressors.

cincysuz says:
16 Nov 2008  at  05:07 pm | #

There are many theories why AIDs is such an epidemic in the black community. One is obvious. Marriage and monogamy isn’t quite as sacred and natural as L.G. claims. Another is that condemnation of homosexuals by the black community and specifically the black church, makes gay men unwilling to come out and live openly, and certainly that’s understandable when black people are at the forefront of denying them rights. And it’s not just gay marriage. It’s basic protections. But there’s a name for it, and books about it--the down low, it’s called. L.G.s arguments are proof positive that discrimination against gays, because they’re “unnatural” is acceptable. I know also that suicide rates among gay teens is higher than straight and even higher among black gay teens. That’s not a surprise when people like L.G., a member in good standing of the leading civil rights groups in the nation, labels them unnatural.

Speaking of outing people. I spoke to friends in L.A. and it’s off the hook out there. Gay and gay-friendly advocacy groups have obtained the donor lists for Proposition 8 (financed by the Mormon Church who by the way, up until 2 decades ago thought that black people were doomed by god) and they’re publishing the business names and boycotts have started already. One well-known restaurant catered predominently to a gay clientele and has done a great business, donated. The owner has made a public apology and claims she didn’t know what she was doing. Others are being outed as we speak. I like it.

I’m married. My marriage isn’t threatened by gays getting married, or hetero people not getting married. It’s none of my business. I don’t know if you’re married L.G. but it’s a shame that your union is so fragile that it’s threatened by others getting the same rights you take for granted. I just hope the courts get involved and rule against the proposition. I don’t think that people get to vote on everything the want. Otherwise you might find places in America where the majority community might decide the minority community can’t vote, get loans, live where they want, attend certain schools.

LG says:
16 Nov 2008  at  05:15 pm | #

So black people are oppressors now in the United States?

says:
16 Nov 2008  at  06:25 pm | #

Everybody that votes to discriminate against gay people is oppressing them regardless of the color of their skin. There are people from all races that are discriminating against gay people.

Yes, some black people and certainly some white people are oppressing gays and just because it’s their religious belief doesn’t make it OK. Some racist have claimed that their interpretation of the bible says that blacks and whites can’t marry, that doesn’t make their bigotry acceptable.

The Irish were discriminated against when they came to America, but that didn’t stop them from discriminating against other minorities, like black people did it?

Do I think your support of gay marriage bans is oppressive to gay people? Yes, I do. Do I think that the fact that black people have been oppressed and still face discrimination makes that OK? No, I don’t.

LG says:
16 Nov 2008  at  07:34 pm | #

Jim Crow and slavery used to be the law. That doesn’t make it right.

I cannot believe we’re comparing gay marriage bans to Jim Crow & slavery!  Gay marriage is not even in the same ballpark as slavery, the biggest atrocity
in North American history.  Or Jim Crow!  JJ, I think you really need to study history before comparing gay marriage to either one of these situations.

Cincysuz...don’t count on gay marriage winning in Court.  It may get out of California if it’s heard, but the U.S. Supreme Court won’t have it.

LG says:
16 Nov 2008  at  08:15 pm | #

Prop. 8’s passage + Ohio’s Gay Marriage Ban + Conservative U.S. Supreme Court + 32 other states banning gay marriage = End of conversation.

says:
16 Nov 2008  at  10:34 pm | #

Prop. 8’s passage + Ohio’s Gay Marriage Ban + Conservative U.S. Supreme Court + 32 other states banning gay marriage = Bigotry!

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere"- Dr. King

says:
17 Nov 2008  at  12:04 pm | #

LG, the country was founded on genocide against indigenous people. The Jim Crow era was a lot less brutal than genocide and slavery. Traditionaly, marriage meant women were property. Men could take several wifes. This is the history of the institution.

My point was that the mere fact that something is law has nothing to do with whether or not it is just. Our country has become a lot more civilised, but we still have bigotry and a long way to go. Gay marriage will win, it’s only a matter of time.

Marriage can be a religous institution. It is also a civil institution used by atheists. We don’t care if your church doesn’t recognize gay marriage, but for the government not to is another matter. That is unequal treatment under the law.

cincysuz says:
20 Nov 2008  at  05:50 pm | #

This is a lot to read but it’s an e-mail update I got from one of the LGBT groups commenting on Obama’s positions on gay rights. Though he still hesitates on gay marriage, he supports full civil union rights absolutely equivalent to those that hetero couples are entitled to. This seems to be an acceptable compromise, and his aggressive plans for legal protections of gays, is the reason he got such strong support in that community.

Obama posts campaign pledges on LGBT rightsBy 365gay Newscenter Staff11.19.2008 9:41am EST(Washington)
President-elect Barack Obama has laid out his commitment to LGBT civil rights in an eight-point plan posted on his transition Web site. It calls for passage of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act; agender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act; repeal of Don’tAsk Don’t Tell; repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act;opposition to any attempt to reintroduce an amendment to theConstitution to ban same-sex marriage, support for inclusive adoption rights; and an expanded war on HIV/AIDS. The program is identical to Obama’s positions during the campaign and LGBT rights groups said it shows that the president-elect is committed to keeping his word.

The Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Act would add sexual orientation to the list of categories covered under federal hate crime law. It passed the House in 2007 and the White House threatened to veto it. In an effort to get around a veto, the Senate version was tied to the 2008 defense authorization bill.  It passed but then went to conference, where it was stripped out. Obama was a co-sponsor of the bill. On his transition Web site, Obama notes that in 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported, making up more than 15 percent. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama helped pass tough legislation that made hate crimes - and the conspiracy to commit them- against the law. Obama, in his eight-point plan, also supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and says it must include gender identity. ENDA passed the US House in 2007 without protections for the transgendered, but was not taken up by the Senate. The legislation would make it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring, firing, promoting or paying an employee. ENDA as originally introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) includedtranspeople, but Frank removed those protections in committee, sayingit would be impossible to pass the bill if it included gender identity. More than a dozen LGBT groups immediately distanced themselves from the legislation. Frank has since said he would fight to ensure an inclusive ENDA is passed. Obama’s support for an inclusive ENDA virtually assures it will include gender identity when it is reintroduced in the next session ofCongress. “While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees’ domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy, “Obama says on the transition site. Legislation to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on gays serving openly in the military, was taken up in committee this year for the first time, but did not make it to a vote. DADT was enacted in 1993. Since then more than 12,000 service members have been dismissed when it was learned they are gay.  According to statistics from the Service members Legal Defense Network, which advocates for gays in the military, an average of two service members each day are dismissed under the law. “The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense ofduty, and a willingness to serve.

Discrimination should be prohibited,” the Obama transition site says. “Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals. “The Web site also touts Obama’s commitment to same-sex families, but he remains reluctant to support gay marriage. “Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples.” the transition site says."Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights,” the Website says. He also supports adoption rights for all couples “regardless of their sexual orientation."Obama’s plan also offers a comprehensive plan for combating HIV/AIDS.” In the first year of his presidency, Barack Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities,” the Web site says.Part of that plan would see a diminished role for the Bush administration’s dependence on abstinence education, as well as distributing contraceptives in prisons and lifting the federal ban on needle exchanges.

If I have been of service, if I have glimpsed more of the nature and essence of ultimate good, if I am inspired to reach wider horizons of thought and
action, if I am at peace with myself, it has been a successful day. - Alex