Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest seicer

Gay / Transgender Rights

Recommended Posts

Gay? U.S. House Says That's Okay

By Deb Price, Creators Syndicate, November 12, 2007

 

It has taken more than 30 years for the House to pass the bill now known as the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

In a respectful and moving gesture, Speaker Nancy Pelosi took the gavel so that she could personally proclaim that the U.S. House had just voted in favor of a national ban on anti-gay job discrimination.

 

"On this vote, the yeas are 235, the nays are 184. The bill is passed," said the beaming speaker, whose pantsuit was a gay-friendly lavender.

 

It had taken more than three decades for the House to pass the bill now known as the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), succeeding after its razor-thin defeat in the Senate in 1996.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a sense as to whether it will pass in the Senate, i.e. seen any analysis on this? As close as the Senate is, if it were to go along party lines, Republicans would be able to filibuster it into defeat. I know it's likely to be vetoed anyway, but having both houses approve it provides a greater sense of consensus on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a sense as to whether it will pass in the Senate, i.e. seen any analysis on this? As close as the Senate is, if it were to go along party lines, Republicans would be able to filibuster it into defeat. I know it's likely to be vetoed anyway, but having both houses approve it provides a greater sense of consensus on the issue.

 

I haven't seen any conclusive numbers for the Senate, but have heard that a few Rethugs would sign onto the bill if it is worded properly. We'll actually see if that happens or not, my guess is they'll cave to the pressure. I'm sure Larry Craig will vote against it. . .like any self hating closeted gay man. It's really sad. . .I hope the GOP falls apart next election cycle. Talk about a part of hate. . .this is definitely not the less government, fiscally responsible party it once was. . .but the hate has stayed the same. ;-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see more hate on this board than I do from Republicans....

 

There are a lot of Republicans who don't agree with Bush's big government, careless spending. Hence the popularity of Ron Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open your eyes. . .The GOP is Hellbent on keeping gay americans as second class citizens.

 

Difference of opinion doesn't equal hate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open your eyes. . .The GOP is Hellbent on keeping gay americans as second class citizens.

 

Difference of opinion doesn't equal hate. 

 

That's such a lame argument. Opinions are irrelevant when it comes to the concept of "equal rights".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of Republicans who don't agree with Bush's big government, careless spending. Hence the popularity of Ron Paul.

 

Conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff ®. Nov. 1-5, 2007. Asked of Republicans, and non-Republicans who said they would vote in a Republican presidential primary (from a total sample of 1,509 adults nationwide). MoE ± 4.2.

 

"Let me mention some people who might seek the Republican nomination for president in 2008. If the next Republican primary for president were being held today, for which one of the following candidates would you vote . . . ?" If unsure: "Well, which way do you lean?"

 

Rudy Giuliani, 33%

John McCain, 16%

Fred Thompson, 15%

Mitt Romney, 11%     

Mike Huckabee, 8%

Ron Paul, 4%

Duncan Hunter, 2%

Tom Tancredo, 2%

Other (vol.), 1%

None (vol.), 1%

Unsure, 7%

Sam Brownback, n/a

 

Okay, I agree that we liberals tend to be a little hard on Republicans, but I would hardly say that Ron Paul's campaign is "popular" among Republicans, just as the savvy Bill Richardson has an interesting platform, but at 4%, is hardly setting the tone for the Democratic platform.

 

That being said, it feels like almost all of the Republican candidates are taking a stance that is more fiscally conservative than Bush ever was on the election trail.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see more hate on this board than I do from Republicans....

 

You mean, people who disagree with your opinion. As in, where you called me out personally in the Iraq debate thread. Or in the Creation Museum thread.

 

Difference of opinion doesn't equal hate.

 

That's such a lame argument. Opinions are irrelevant when it comes to the concept of "equal rights".

 

Agreed. DanB seems to be in disagreement with equal protection for gays/lesbians/bisexuals, which is the equivalent of giving equal protection to African-Americans in the past. There should be no difference in opinion. This isn't about giving gays added benefits or anything; it's about giving them equal protection under the law which all citizens are entitled to. The Constitution has no clause saying that gays should be denied equal rights (or for African-Americans in the past); it's only because of the interpretation of a few closed-minded senators and house members that this was not passed many years ago.

 

I'm always open to hear why equal rights should not be provided for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this thread intended for general political discussion on the gay issue, or is it limited to just the Congressional action ENDA?

 

The reason Im asking is the issue is heating up again in Dayton, and Im not sure if I should start a new thread or post the articles here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I put the () as a catch all thread for related topics regarding gay/bi/lesbian issues. The topic should really be changed to reflect that (sorry for the extra work, mods and admins). Go ahead and post away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gay rights issue heats ups after the Dayton city commission put the ordnance on the agenda for a first reading earlier in the month...btw, I think DanB is from Dayton.  So maybe that says something...

 

Ministers want citizens' input on gender law

 

By Joanne Huist Smith

 

Staff Writer

 

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

 

DAYTON — Local ministers have asked the Dayton City Commission to table their vote on proposed legislation that would give protection from discrimination due to gender identity and sexual orientation.

 

They're requesting the commission remove this item from their Nov. 21 agenda.

"This matter is so paramount that we don't see how anyone could possibly think of a direction to choose without the collective agreement of as many citizens as possible," said the Rev. Wilburt O. Shanklin, president of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance.

 

In a press conference held at St. Luke Missionary Baptist Church on Tuesday, Shanklin called for a vote on the issue by Dayton residents, after much dialogue.

 

link

 

Ohio not among protectors of sex orientation

Only 17 states have laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Listen to this article or download audio file.Click-2-Listen

 

By Joanne Huist Smith

 

Staff Writer

 

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

 

DAYTON — If you are discriminated against in Dayton because of sexual orientation, don't expect recourse right now from the city or state.

 

Toni Delgado, spokeswoman for the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, said only 17 states afford protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation, and Ohio isn't one of them. The term sexual orientation refers to homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality.

 

"It's really sad for people not to understand that people can be discriminated against for sexual orientation," Delgado said. "People are losing jobs. People are losing their housing. How can someone make a complaint? There are no laws to protect them."

 

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see more hate on this board than I do from Republicans....

 

You mean, people who disagree with your opinion. As in, where you called me out personally in the Iraq debate thread. Or in the Creation Museum thread.

 

But I don't hate you Siecer.  I just disagree with you and feel sorry for you for all the trouble you have getting along with people!  I truly think you hate me though!  Come on, admit it, there is a lot of hate for Republicans and the current administration on this board, even in this thread.

 

Someone said on this thread, that Republicans want to keep gays as second class citizens.  I know some on UO who are gay, and some I can assume, but none of you seem to be second class citizens to me, or seem to be suffering for it.  If you want to sway someones opinion, you need to learn how to have a discussion without throwing around the accusations.

 

 

Agreed. DanB seems to be in disagreement with equal protection for gays/lesbians/bisexuals, which is the equivalent of giving equal protection to African-Americans in the past. There should be no difference in opinion. This isn't about giving gays added benefits or anything; it's about giving them equal protection under the law which all citizens are entitled to. The Constitution has no clause saying that gays should be denied equal rights (or for African-Americans in the past); it's only because of the interpretation of a few closed-minded senators and house members that this was not passed many years ago.

 

I'm always open to hear why equal rights should not be provided for all.

 

No, I believe in equal rights and especially equal protection.  If someone is discriminated against, there are laws to protect them.  I don't believe in unnecessary laws though.  Take hate crime laws for example, I think they are stupid.  Why does it matter if a person drags someone on the back of their car because of their color?  All the hate crime law does is trivialize the act itself!  Those men deserve to lose their lives for what they did, not why they did it!

 

Your accusing me of hate, is like you accusing everyone of preventing you from taking your photos.  Not everyone is out to get you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, I believe in equal rights and especially equal protection. 

 

Do you believe gays should be allowed to get married in every state and adopt?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No to marriage, yes to adoption.  Now convince me otherwise.  I'm the type of guy whose mind you have to change!  I'm flexible, but I'm entitled to my beliefs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gee. I kind of wonder why the church would want to forbid civil rights for

 

Well, if you read their flier:

 

"if homosexuals and lesbians should have special rights and privileges because of a sexual preference, what is next? With a growing number of sexual predators, pedophilia and other offenders, will they secretly grant these people, groups, special rights do to their sexual preference?"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose I should stay away from Catholic churches then :P

 

From DanB:

"If someone is discriminated against, there are laws to protect them."

 

Not really. If you are openly gay and are openly discriminated against, there are few laws in many states to protect you. What this bill that is passing in the House does, is essentially criminalize employers and governments for discrimination -- much as we do for women and for people of different orgins.

 

Here are three categories of discrimination, taken out of "Poverty and Discrimination" by Lang and "The Invisible Safety Net" by Currie, from my Economics of Poverty studies course.

Labor Market: Exists when the (wage, hour) pair offered to a member of a minority group is inferior to that of a majority group, holding ability, education, occupation, industry, experience, etc. constant.

Societal: Occurs when opportunities to accumulate skills are rationed on the basis of minority group membership.

Secondary: Occurs when the member of the minority group expects to suffer discrimination in the labor market, and thus they rationally underinvest in human capital. (More so with African Americans than with any other group.)

 

Employer based theories of discrimination:

"Taste of discrimination": Occurs when an employer has a distaste for certain groups of workers based on factors independent of productivity. This assumes that the workers in the minority group are perfect substitutes in production with workers in the majority group.

"Statistical discrimination": Occurs when an employer has limited information on the productivity of minority group members and thus stereotypes such members as possessing average ability.

 

It's rational and has been proved that employers discriminate for whatever reason. For being black. Gay. Asian. And so forth. To criminalize these acts for dening people jobs, promotions and what have you for what is essentially a trivial reason, is an excellent way to give liberties to those who deserve it. As shown in labor market earnings by African American women from 1967 to 1990, the wages increased substantially from a 65% departure from their counterparts (white women) to an equal foothold against their counterparts. The same can be said for African American men, but to a lesser extent. No data exists for gays in labor market earnings, but I surmise that if we did include such statistics in the census data after this bill passes (if we also had historical data on this), the labor market earnings would surely increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No to marriage, yes to adoption.  Now convince me otherwise.  I'm the type of guy whose mind you have to change!  I'm flexible, but I'm entitled to my beliefs. 

 

If I am a gay religious man and want to get married in a church, why am I not allowed but a non-religious straight couple can get married in a church if they want to?  Explain that to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and like seicer said, there are many ways gay people can legally get discriminated against.  If I lived in any suburb in this state practically, if a gay couple wanted to buy a home in that suburb, the person selling the house can openly say no to them simply because they are gay, and that is not against the law.  Now, in Cincy and Covington and C-Bus, C-Land, and I am sure a couple others, discrimination based on orientation or not allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I started to veer into the labor economics of my discussion, but my general point was that discrimination still exists, whether you are African-American, gay, a woman, fat, and etc. From employers to realators, there are still some that discriminate against African-Americans! And then theres a chunk of the population that hold statistical discrimination.

 

I was browsing through my book and it has an interesting statistic. The vast majority of those below 18 years of age, and from 18-35 fully support equal rights and marriage for gays. It begins to taper off up to age 45, then it's a straight downhill curve for those 65+. Once the current generation of those 65+ expire (not saying this in a bad way), then you could see some serious change in equal opportunities for all (and for many other topics).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If someone is discriminated against, there are laws to protect them."

 

I truly hope you are not that naive. If you are, here are a few lessons - mind you, there are hundreds of rights that hetero couples enjoy but gay couples are denied - here are a few aspects of my life that are affected:

 

Dan, if my boss walked up to me tomorrow and says "You're outta here because you're gay." - it doesn't matter how good of a worker I am, it doesn't matter how well I've performed - I'm gone with no legal recourse. If they said "because you're black/Jewish/female/pregnant/veteran etc." - I could claim wrongful termination. Gays? Noooo, that's special treatment! :roll:

 

Dan, if (god forbid) my partner was hospitalized - I could be forbidden from being able to visit him because I'm not legally "next of kin" or "immediate family". The only way I can obtain any kind of legal "in" is to get a power of attorney and to carry it with me at all times. Do you have to do that? But - if I want that same right - that's special treatment!

 

Dan, (god forbid) my partner could be on his deathbed and if some doctor decided that because I didn't have that POA with me - I could be forcibly removed from the hospital - as my partner lay dying. Do you have to worry about that? Nooo, but if I want the right to be by the love of my life as he lay dying - THAT'S special treatment!

 

Dan, if (god forbid) my partner was placed on life support - I would be denied the same rights you enjoy as a legally-married spouse to make decisions pertaining to treatment. Do I even need to say it?

 

Dan, if (god forbid) my partner passed away - unlike you, I would not be entitled to inheritance and unlike you, his will could be contested by the most distant/estranged relative. Why? Because (I'm guessing you voted in favor of Issue 1 a few years ago), people like YOU have decided that the love and devotion that I have with my partner is less than what you share with yours. People like you have decided that adulterous, abusive, unhealthy "marriages" between two people of the opposite sex are still more morally and socially acceptable than a loving, monogamous relationship between two people of the same sex. Maybe you're saying "Hang on, I don't think that - I think gays should have reasonable rights, I just voted for Issue 1 so my church isn't forced to marry gays; it's against our doctrine". If that's the case - you've been bamboozled by bigots like Kenneth Blackwell. Thanks to him and the people who voted in favor of Issue 1, non-religous civil unions aren't even an option. Even legal documents established by gay couples fall under the "anything resembling marriage" part of the ban passed with Issue 1. So remind me the next time some bigoted politician decides to bring who you are to a vote - I'll be sure to gloss over the fine print and vote based on some ignorant fear. Sorry if we're a little "hateful" about that.

 

If you'd like more example of how there AREN'T laws to protect me against discrimination, I'll be more than happy to share. See, you might appreciate the feedback I've given you on renovating your property in Detroit-Shoreway, but according to the laws of the State of Ohio - I am a second-class citizen. Oh, and excuse us gays for being a little hateful about the whole issue - but now that you know why we might be a little p!ssy about it - I think you'll have a little more understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[ I don't believe in unnecessary laws though.  Take hate crime laws for example, I think they are stupid.  Why does it matter if a person drags someone on the back of their car because of their color?  All the hate crime law does is trivialize the act itself!  Those men deserve to lose their lives for what they did, not why they did it!

 

Of course it matters why someone commits an criminal act, punishing the motive behind a criminal act is the basis of  our criminal justice system.  This is why hitting someone with your car and killing them does not carry the same criminal penalty as premeditated murder.  in this example, we have two dead people and two different punishments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No to marriage, yes to adoption. Now convince me otherwise. I'm the type of guy whose mind you have to change! I'm flexible, but I'm entitled to my beliefs.

 

replace race with gender in the following opinion of the supreme court

 

Loving v. Virginia 388 US 1 (1967)

 

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mayday, I've appreciated all the advice you have given me,  not only on the property, but also for the job info you gave me for my daughter's move to cleveland.  Not sure how any of this relates.  No, I am not naive, and don't think I deserve some of the shots you took.

 

Briefly, no an employer shouldn't be able to fire someone because they are gay.  You act like it happens daily or it has happened to you.

 

All that stuff about your partner, so carry the stupid POA if that's what it takes.  Believe me, marriage isn't all its cracked up to be!  You'll be happy you can just walk away when a cuter guy comes along!

 

....people like YOU have decided that the love and devotion that I have with my partner is less than what you share with yours. People like you have decided that adulterous, abusive, unhealthy "marriages" between two people of the opposite sex are still more morally and socially acceptable than a loving, monogamous relationship between two people of the same sex.

 

A little bigotted to call me YOU PEOPLE don't you think?  Come on, no one is saying that adulterous, abusive marriages are better than a gay relationship.  Not ALL marriages are bad, as I'm sure not all gay relationships are perfect!  And I never gave any indication that I believe your love is any less.  Love is love.  I'm all for some sort of civil union, I just don't believe it should be like a traditional marriage.  Sorry, just my opinion.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[ I don't believe in unnecessary laws though.  Take hate crime laws for example, I think they are stupid.  Why does it matter if a person drags someone on the back of their car because of their color?  All the hate crime law does is trivialize the act itself!  Those men deserve to lose their lives for what they did, not why they did it!

 

Of course it matters why someone commits an criminal act, punishing the motive behind a criminal act is the basis of  our criminal justice system.  This is why hitting someone with your car and killing them does not carry the same criminal penalty as premeditated murder.  in this example, we have two dead people and two different punishments.

 

Thomas, your making a bad comparison.  The motive of course matters, but my point was, once you've decided on premeditated murder, it doesn't matter why.  Murder is murder and the punishment should be death.  It shouldn't be 20 to life with possibility of parole for shooting someone in a driveby, but worse if it was a hate crime.

 

The only need for hate crime legislation is the liberal courts which don't want the punishment to fit the crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should MayDay provide the POA if you, a heterosexual, shouldn't? Isn't that the whole basis of equal liberties and rights under the protection of the law? Or does the equal protection only extend to certain classes of individuals? Remember only fourty years ago, we were discriminating against African-Americans, not allowing them to share restrooms, denying them jobs, etc. And today, we are discriminating against women in terms of pay scale and job offerings.

 

"You'll be happy you can just walk away when a cuter guy comes along!"

 

There are some gay couples (and many heterosexual domestic partners) that are perfectly happy staying together. That shows commitment, and very few are "happy" when they are walking away from a relationship that they devote much time and attention to. It's not all about cuteness as your comment intends. I know that if I find a committed partner, that I'll try to stick with it, making sacrifices and devoting much time and attention to make the relationship work. If it doesn't, then I'm surely not going to be all gleeful over it; and I'm certainly not going to drop him for a cuter guy each time. We all don't troll for ass :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last property my wife and I purchased, we had to show our marriage license!  Believe me, I will have to prove I am her husband if she's incapacitated somewhere and no one knows us.

 

My point about leaving for someone else was in response to Maydays claim that heterosexuals approve of abusive relationships.  Both statements are ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only need for hate crime legislation is the liberal courts which don't want the punishment to fit the crime.

 

also there is the long history of thousands of hate crimes and lynchings going unpunished in this country.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toledo officials approve registry for gay, unmarried couples

Associated Press, November 14, 2007

 

The City Council has approved an ordinance to allow gay or other unmarried couples to register their domestic partnerships as proof of eligibility for benefits such as health care.

 

Those who sign an affidavit at City Hall would receive a certificate and cards to provide employers as proof of an unmarried but committed relationship.

 

Supporters say the ordinance, which passed on a 10-2 vote Tuesday, does not violate Ohio's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It is modeled after the only other one in the state, which voters in Cleveland Heights approved in 2003.

 

The registry also could provide a basis for people to visit domestic partners in the hospital and pick up children at schools, supporters said, noting that the city has a domestic partnership registry for police officers and firefighters who have negotiated benefits in their collective bargaining agreements.

 

Councilmen Rob Ludeman said he voted to reject the ordinance because of the cost to employers and because he saw it as "one more attempt to tear down the institution of marriage between a man and a woman."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm all for some sort of civil union, I just don't believe it should be like a traditional marriage.  Sorry, just my opinion.

 

Why not?  Again, why can a non-religious straight couple be afforded a 'traditional marriage' when a religious gay couple cannot? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and just fyi dan, you are on the wrong side of history.  In 50 years, when people look back on our current society, they will gasp at our treatment of homosexuals, and your view point, sad to say, will be the 'bigoted, close-minded' view.  I am not calling you a bigot I am just warning you that history will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan, you're not following and you need to.

 

"Briefly, no an employer shouldn't be able to fire someone because they are gay.  You act like it happens daily or it has happened to you."

 

The point is that it could happen to me, and that it happens at all.

 

"Come on, no one is saying that adulterous, abusive marriages are better than a gay relationship. I'm all for some sort of civil union, I just don't believe it should be like a traditional marriage.  Sorry, just my opinion."

 

What I'm saying is that a lot of people voted for Issue 1, many of them, like you - approve of civil unions but don't want gays to be able to walk into any church and force the church to marry them. Sounds reasonable, right?

 

The problem is - those people didn't pay attention and didn't read the fine print - Issue 1 read "Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." That last part is intended to render useless the legal documents used by gays to prove things like co-habitation, joint accounts, etc. So, by voting in favor of Issue 1, you have voted into law that gay couples - no matter how committed and devoted - are not deserving of the "design, qualities, significance or effects" of marriage. If you support civil unions, you shouldn't have voted for Issue 1 because Issue 1 made sure they aren't an option. THAT'S why I say that unhealthy hetero marriages are "seen" more favorably than healthy gay relationships. Do you get it?

 

"Mayday, I've appreciated all the advice you have given me,  not only on the property, but also for the job info you gave me for my daughter's move to cleveland.  Not sure how any of this relates."

 

I said that so you realize that everything we're talking about affects real people, not some nebulous "gay agenda".

 

And as for "You'll be happy you can just walk away when a cuter guy comes along!". That simply isn't possible :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...