Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest seicer

Gay / Transgender Rights

Recommended Posts

In my many years of experience, a very large number of the most outspokenly homophobic men I've known have been guarding their own closets. Either they've been fooling around out of sight and trying to "smokescreen" it, or they've been trying to suppress urges that make them hate themselves.

 

I've lost count of the number of fundamentalist preachers and other religious activists in my area who railed against gay-affirming books in public libraries, and then got arrested in public parks or highway rest areas while getting their knees dirty. Guys I knew in the Air Force who told hateful fag jokes or talked about busting up gay bars or beating up queers made up a sizeable number of the ones I saw getting discharged because they got caught messing around with other guys. The elder who was most virulently opposed to ordination of gays and lesbians in the Presbyterian church that I attend was arrested in a nearby cruising park when he groped a vice cop. His wife wasn't happy about it, and his gay son was embarrassed.

 

Several of my friends have told of encountering their former bullying homophobic high-school nemeses a few years later in gay bars.

I was only called a "fag" once in high school (I threatened to kill this football player), and as you said....many years later at a Number or Keys they were sucking face with another man on the dance floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First open gay elected to Cincinnati city council tonight. (At least I am pretty sure that's the case...we've had a number of "open secret" gays.)

 

Gay and die-hard pro-transit? I think I'm in love. ;)

 

Congratulations, Chris Seelbach!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Fabulous!

 

Check this out.  There was a ballot measure in Maine seeking to prohibit same day voter registration.  It ultimately failed by a decently wide margin.  But in the final days of the campaign and desperate to "get out the vote", this ad was published -

 

antigaymainead.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senate panel passes repeal of Defense of Marriage Act

 

Washington (CNN) -- Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to repeal the federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

 

The vote that sends the proposal to the full Senate floor was considered symbolic because the measure has no chance of getting passed by the Republican-led House.

 

All eight Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted "no" Thursday, while all the 10 majority Democrats supported the measure that would provide equal federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples.

 

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/senate-judiciary-committee-approves-bill-repealing-doma

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding that Maine issue. 

 

When I was up in Portland their free newspaper (one of them) posted a front page article sayting that Equality Maine is thinking of putting Gay Marriage back on the ballot.  They have been doing polling on the issue and it seems there is a change of opinion among Maine voters on the issues, with a subset of voters who voted AGAINST gay marriage changing their minds and would vote FOR gay marriage. 

 

Wow.

 

Now Maine is a pretty backwoods state, from what I could see, once you leave Portland.  So that's an impressive change if the gay rights advocates polling has any accuracy.

 

@@@@

 

Which brings up the question as to what in the heck is going on out there.  Are people really changing their minds about gays and lesbians and becoming more tolerant and accepting? 

 

Sometimes I wonder if people are just tired of the issue and dont see it as such a big deal anymore? 

 

Or maybe there are other reasons for this shift in attitude " (that we've seen in other national polls and even state polls on the issue).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone ever heard of Sarah Schulman?  I found out she wrote a book=length critique of Rent, or used Rent as the basis for a critique on trends in pop culture that commodified gays and gayness....and she was part of something called Lesbian Avengers (or she wrote about it), and was part of that "downtown scene" that Gary Indiana and perhaps Keith Haring belonged to.

 

Well, she has a pertinent book out, that sounds a bit like "Flag Wars", or plows a nearby field, at least

 

The Gentrification of the Mind

 

....Sarah Schulman recalls how much of the rebellious queer culture, cheap rents, and a vibrant downtown arts movement vanished almost overnight to be replaced by gay conservative spokespeople and mainstream consumerism. Schulman takes us back to her Lower East Side and brings it to life, filling these pages with vivid memories of her avant-garde queer friends and dramatically recreating the early years of the AIDS crisis as experienced by a political insider. Interweaving personal reminiscence with cogent analysis, Schulman details her experience as a witness to the loss of a generation’s imagination and the consequences of that loss...

 

Could she be writing about some of us gay folk here at Urban Ohio, too?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much like most Republicans, I don't think those two guys came away with a good impression of Mitsy.

 

But at least he spoke to the vets for a bit.

 

There was another embarrassing moment incident caught on camera. Some poor guy was talking to him and said he absolutely relied on marijuana for his muscular dystrophy. Romney, instead of conversing further, just says "I don't support medical marijuana" and coldly walks away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I enjoyed that Rick Perry anti-gay commercial. I almost want to believe it's a parody in itself.

 

I never thought to connect gay marraige to Christmas in schools; I'll give him credit though, he somehow managed to do it.

 

It's like every few weeks we get another episode of the anti-gay retards vs common sense, with Perry just beating out Romney by a hair this time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

I never thought to connect gay marraige to Christmas in schools; I'll give him credit though, he somehow managed to do it.

 

...

 

It's easy to see how all those things are interconnected, once you understand that they're all part of a vast Liberal conspiracy to subvert and destroy the American Dream. Already the abdication of responsibility by parents of their god-given responsibilities is letting Sodomites take over the upbringing of our youth, from Catechism to classrooms to locker rooms.  :-o                                                            ...  :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chatham, NJ installs nation's first openly gay, black Republican mayor

 

CHATHAM — When Bruce Harris was administered the oath of office in this Morris County town Tuesday he formally became what many people believe is the first openly gay, black Republican mayor in the country.

 

“I have felt it is my duty to serve the community,” Harris said. “I think that public service is interesting, and finding ways to meet the challenges facing a small community like Chatham Borough is personally rewarding.”

 

The Victory Fund, an organization that works to elect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, said Harris is the first mayor of his kind in the country. Yet Harris, a lawyer and 30-year resident of the borough, says he did not enter politics to break barriers.

 

The oldest child of 12 growing up in a civil rights-era household in Iowa, Harris said his parents were great community leaders and role models.

 

Cont:

http://www.app.com/article/20120104/NJNEWS/301040084/Chatham-installs-nation-s-first-openly-gay-black-Republican-mayor?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we now see the GOP three-way factional split with the Iowa outcome....the religous right activist wing of the GOP was more in evidence in Iowa, and they picked Santorum over Gingrich.  I guess the more liberatarian wing stuck with Ron Paul. 

 

CV is that Romney will do well in NH due to his being gov in nearby Mass. Then the next biggy will be South Carolina, no?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's easy to see how all those things are interconnected, once you understand that they're all part of a vast Liberal conspiracy to subvert and destroy the American Dream. Already the abdication of responsibility by parents of their god-given responsibilities is letting Sodomites take over the upbringing of our youth, from Catechism to classrooms to locker rooms.  :-o                                                            ...  :roll:

 

Will I see you at the meeting this weekend, Robert?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's easy to see how all those things are interconnected, once you understand that they're all part of a vast Liberal conspiracy to subvert and destroy the American Dream. Already the abdication of responsibility by parents of their god-given responsibilities is letting Sodomites take over the upbringing of our youth, from Catechism to classrooms to locker rooms.  :o                                                            ...  ::)

 

Will I see you at the meeting this weekend, Robert?

 

Gays do not have "meetings" we have "Rendezvous"!

 

TheMoreYouKnow.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's easy to see how all those things are interconnected, once you understand that they're all part of a vast Liberal conspiracy to subvert and destroy the American Dream. Already the abdication of responsibility by parents of their god-given responsibilities is letting Sodomites take over the upbringing of our youth, from Catechism to classrooms to locker rooms.  :-o                                                            ...  :roll:

 

Will I see you at the meeting this weekend, Robert?

 

I'll be busy pursuing my own subversive agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we now see the GOP three-way factional split with the Iowa outcome....the religous right activist wing of the GOP was more in evidence in Iowa, and they picked Santorum over Gingrich.  I guess the more liberatarian wing stuck with Ron Paul. 

 

CV is that Romney will do well in NH due to his being gov in nearby Mass. Then the next biggy will be South Carolina, no?

 

Andrew Sullivan:

What we're seeing, I think, is Romney as the last, dying gasp of Republican fusionism. The old alliance - free market capitalism, social conservatism and anti-Communism - has morphed into a new one - libertarianism, Christianism and anti-Jihadism. Each faction has become more extreme as they have marinated in their own media complex, and responded to their fantasies about president Obama. And there is therefore no fusion possible between them. Maybe a charismatic figure like Reagan could somehow bind them together again; but such a figure comes along rarely.

 

Romney's problem is that he understands he has to unite all these strands, but so obviously sees each of them as merely marketing tools for Romney Inc. that he inspires real confidence from none of them. They may get over it. But this feels like a loaf that won't rise in the oven. The fusionist yeast has disappeared. And Obama, far from uniting them all, seems only, in his inimitable way, to drive them into suicidal distraction.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/ron-paul-in-new-hampshire.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P. J. O'Rourke had a great line on CBS vis a vis gay marriage.  "Married people become Republicans, so I'd like to see everyone have a chance to get married".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This goes to prove what evil, evil bastards conservatives really are when it comes to gay rights.

 

Just Plain Mean (dont like that title, it sounds sort of flippant when there should be more outrage)....about a law recently passed in Michigan specifically discriminating against lesbians and gays..

 

The new law is called the Public Employee Domestic Partner Benefit Restriction Act, and it does just what its title suggests — it bars gay employees’ partners from health care coverage. And here’s the kicker — the law allows city and county employers to provide health care coverage to just about all other family members — uncles, nieces, even cousins. Ours are the only family members that are excluded.

 

Fifteen or twenty years ago, a law like this might have been unremarkable. But today, against a backdrop of national polls showing close to 80 percent support for LGBT-related workplace fairness laws and over 50 percent support for marriage for same-sex couples, Michigan’s spanking new Domestic Partner Benefit Restriction Act stands out as out-of-step ....

 

..bolding and italics are mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ You'd think Michigan would be trying to woo anyone who would move there, rather than repelling people.

 

8 of 9 Cincinnati City Council members signed a motion to offer health benefits to domestic partners of city employees, initiated by Chris Seelbach, the city's first openly gay councilman:

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/09/seelbach-gets-9-signatures-on-domestic-partner-benefits/

 

"Charlie Winburn, council’s only Republican, did not sign, though he says he’s keeping an open mind. He says even if he opposes it, he won’t fight Seelbach on it – there’s no sense in being adversarial, he says, given that there’s already enough support to pass it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris Seelbach is a Louisville native, but went to Xavier for college, and stayed.  The Louisville gay paper did an artcile on him after he won as a "local boy done good" thing. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/tender-photos-unearthed-turbulent-time-235100316.html

 

Tender Photos Unearthed from a Turbulent Time

 

There was something very broken in those days where states prohibited interracial marriage. The arguments, the irrationality, and the pure malciousness behind these laws were virtually the same in those sixteen states as with today's anti gay marriage zealots. Anti-miscegenation laws (which Loving v. Virginia repealed in 1967) existed because states feared to do otherwise would result in:

 

Minorities getting more civil liberties;

White bloodlines "diluted";

White women becoming enslaved to their black husbands;

White supremacy challenged;

States' losing their rights to self regulate;

 

 

Now in 2012, I cannot think of anyone - politician or not - who is against interracial marriage, certainly not openly. That hatred and fear - or, again, at least its open promotion - is from a different era.

 

And now we go to gay marriage, with politicians and staunch conservatives gleefully warning us about men marrying newborns should they be allowed to marry one-another, or the total collapse of the family should two loving adults get to marry. These irrationalities are in essence - hell, half the time the arguments are verbatim - the exact same as those that existed up to fifty years ago or so:

 

Homosexuals receiving more civil liberties;

Marriage becoming "diluted";

Children growing up and brainwashed to becoming gay due to their parents' orientation;

Straight people's supremacy, as edicted by the Bible, challenged;

States' losing their rights to self regulate - that one never changes.

 

My point: Gay marriage is the only social policy issue of which there is no legitimate counter-argument. There is no way of defending homophobic laws outside of biblical misreadings and disdain for someone you don't understand. I guess that's why I feel so strongly about it more than other social issues, even though it doesn't directly affect me. It's just so...OBVIOUS and we've already gone through this with interracial marriage. And still a large segment (growing smaller, but not invisible) of our country is purposefully ignorant on the topic so that we have to wait for what's obviously a foregone conclusion, that states should not and, soon but not soon enough, cannot bar gay marraiges.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/tender-photos-unearthed-turbulent-time-235100316.html

 

Tender Photos Unearthed from a Turbulent Time

 

There was something very broken in those days where states prohibited interracial marriage. The arguments, the irrationality, and the pure malciousness behind these laws were virtually the same in those sixteen states as with today's anti gay marriage zealots. Anti-miscegenation laws (which Loving v. Virginia repealed in 1967) existed because states feared to do otherwise would result in:

 

Minorities getting more civil liberties;

White bloodlines "diluted";

White women becoming enslaved to their black husbands;

White supremacy challenged;

States' losing their rights to self regulate;

 

 

Now in 2012, I cannot think of anyone - politician or not - who is against interracial marriage, certainly not openly. That hatred and fear - or, again, at least its open promotion - is from a different era.

 

And now we go to gay marriage, with politicians and staunch conservatives gleefully warning us about men marrying newborns should they be allowed to marry one-another, or the total collapse of the family should two loving adults get to marry. These irrationalities are in essence - hell, half the time the arguments are verbatim - the exact same as those that existed up to fifty years ago or so:

 

Homosexuals receiving more civil liberties;

Marriage becoming "diluted";

Children growing up and brainwashed to becoming gay due to their parents' orientation;

Straight people's supremacy, as edicted by the Bible, challenged;

States' losing their rights to self regulate - that one never changes.

 

My point: Gay marriage is the only social policy issue of which there is no legitimate counter-argument. There is no way of defending homophobic laws outside of biblical misreadings and disdain for someone you don't understand. I guess that's why I feel so strongly about it more than other social issues, even though it doesn't directly affect me. It's just so...OBVIOUS and we've already gone through this with interracial marriage. And still a large segment (growing smaller, but not invisible) of our country is purposefully ignorant on the topic so that we have to wait for what's obviously a foregone conclusion, that states should not and, soon but not soon enough, cannot bar gay marraiges.

 

 

Actually there is.

 

The government shouldn't be involved in the marriage business at all.

 

We have enough laws regarding paternity, testate succession, etc. that marriage laws serve no compelling govenment interest.

 

Tedolph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it is a somewhat sad commentary on our society, these things take time.  The groundbreaking case of Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954.  Loving v. Virginia did not come down until 1967.  We will see it happen in our lifetime, for sure..... even if the idea we have to wait for it is ridiculous.

 

EDIT - you see..... even tedolph is against proposing a law to officially ban gay marriage and any current law which prohibit such marriages.  Personally, I could give a rat's arse how we get to the finish line, or whatever form of twisted rationale people have to use to appease their convictions, so long as we get there.  Marriage equality is the only goal.  If that means taking away legal recognition of straight marriages, as unnecessary as that might seem and putting aside the added complexities that would create at least in the short term, I would at least be willing to discuss that option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT - you see..... even tedolph is against proposing a law to officially ban gay marriage and any current law which prohibit such marriages.  Personally, I could give a rat's arse how we get to the finish line, or whatever form of twisted rationale people have to use to appease their convictions, so long as we get there.  Marriage equality is the only goal.  If that means taking away legal recognition of straight marriages, as unnecessary as that might seem and putting aside the added complexities that would create at least in the short term, I would at least be willing to discuss that option.

 

This is perhaps the biggest instance where the libertarin viewpoint is, in my opinion,  the most pragmatic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. You are comparing apples to oranges. Don't compare white and black issues to homosexual issues. Society has the right to define marriage as it sees fit.

 

Figure out some way to legally bind 2 people together and give them the same privileges and problems as married couples, but don't call it marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can keep trying to sell that fruit, Dan.  Some people agree with you, especially the religous black community who have been taught that homosexuality is an abomination and, perhaps more importantly, don't want any movement compared to theirs from 50 years ago.  But you are quickly becoming a dying breed and history will frown on you.  I guarantee you that.  Times change.  We progress and evolve.  You should know that.  After all, the Founding Fathers thought they could define Blacks as 3/5 of a human.

 

Here's your proof - PPP just did a recent poll which showed that 47% of republican and independent voters would vote for a gay candidate (compared to only 30% for an atheist candidate).  That is a MONUMENTAL leap from where we were just 10 years ago, especially considering the sample 

 

Surf - after re-reading, I have to clarify my earlier comments.  It may be pragmatic in our minds, but not in application.  The effect of legally recognized marriage is too intertwined in our society to simply separate it out with the stroke of a pen.  And it would have to be done state by state since marriage is not regulated on the national level (except for DOMA).  It is written into the codes and common law of every single state... and has various and very diverse applications (marriage, custody, spousal support, survivorship, marital property, etc. etc., etc.).  Our own Revised Code would require significant revisions and years (even decades) of litigation to apply and fully interpret the effect of those revisions.

 

So, the bottom line is that the people who advocate for that avenue (i.e. get gub'ment out of marriage) towards marriage equality (but who also understand the above) are really simply trying to stay away from the issue.  They don't want to come off as a bigot in public, but don't want to join or aid the movement in any meaningful way.  It is a very effective delay tactic similar to the tactics we saw working our way towards racial or gender equality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. You are comparing apples to oranges. Don't compare white and black issues to homosexual issues. Society has the right to define marriage as it sees fit.

 

Figure out some way to legally bind 2 people together and give them the same privileges and problems as married couples, but don't call it marriage.

 

The fallacy that "society has the right to define" anything is contradicted by the fact that we have a Bill of Rights. Marriage is a more purely political issue than, say, the freedom of religion in the US (which people can more freely choose than they do their sexuality, so why not ban unpopular religions?), but I agree that you're way of thinking lacks reason and will fade away as soon as the older generation, raised during a much more homophobic time than our own, dies off. Changing their minds is much more difficult, unless a beloved granddaughter or grandson comes out to them, and they begin to see how difficult life can be without basic human rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marriage is not a basic human right. As I said, fix the laws to prevent discrimination and leave marriage alone. You're right, its mostly religious. In my case it has nothing to do with homophobia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

separate the legal from the religious. Should be easy for a legal mind like yours! You're always reading the Constitution to fit your needs, make it happen! :wink2:

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...