Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay rights. Show all posts
Friday, June 24, 2011
California becomes even more backwoods as time goes by...
New York just legalized gay marriage. California was a trailblazer for a little while there, now we're less social and advanced than Iowa. But, then it's really hard to be more progressive and equal than Iowa. We'd need to treat people as human.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
MAINE LEGALIZES GAY MARRIAGE!
Sorry about shouting. It's really not that exciting, but I noted in comments of "Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage" that though I didn't use full caps in "Iowa legalizes gay marriage" that I would use full caps next time. So it seems like a building trend rather than inconsistent headlines. Maine became the second state to simply pass a law to allow it rather than legalize it by way of the courts.
This is a pretty good trend. I doubt it will be even five more years before it's properly legalized.
This is a pretty good trend. I doubt it will be even five more years before it's properly legalized.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Iowa legalizes gay marriage...
Well that's quant, now my state is hick compared to fricking Iowa. Damn you California.
Friday, December 26, 2008
In the Warren snaffu, Obama seems clean.
Watching from the sidelines I have to say that Obama's actually looking pretty distant and unscathed. He invited him to say a silly prayer and suddenly everybody dug up a crap load of dirt on the guy. I've never really liked him, he's always seemed pretty smarmy but managed to stay above the fray. Walking out before Dan Dennett came around to compliment his book and pretending he was a reasonable member of society. Obama clearly can't rescind the offer, so you couldn't blame him considering all the new stuff we're learning.
Warren changed the language on his webpage to make it less gay-unfriendly (failure to delay gay satisfactions until after death means you no get into church), and Obama more of a commitment to the gay community on his transition site (which is certainly a more honest step).
But largely, I think this is all pretty positive. Obama comes off a little naive but stuck and Warren gets to writhe in the flames of public opinion.
Warren changed the language on his webpage to make it less gay-unfriendly (failure to delay gay satisfactions until after death means you no get into church), and Obama more of a commitment to the gay community on his transition site (which is certainly a more honest step).
But largely, I think this is all pretty positive. Obama comes off a little naive but stuck and Warren gets to writhe in the flames of public opinion.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Large Protests Against Prop 8
I hope they travel back in time because otherwise they are pointless and an example of why prop 8 passed.
Honestly, giant No protests on the news nightly for the last couple weeks before the election would have had considerable sway back when sway was possible.
The No camp was all reaction. Yes sent a bunch of cards around saying Barack Obama doesn't support gay marriage and only then did the No people point out that Barack Obama supports voting no. For a proposition that had 70%+ African American support they should have taken the president elects support to the bank early and often.
I'm glad that people are passionate, they should have done this before.
Honestly, giant No protests on the news nightly for the last couple weeks before the election would have had considerable sway back when sway was possible.
The No camp was all reaction. Yes sent a bunch of cards around saying Barack Obama doesn't support gay marriage and only then did the No people point out that Barack Obama supports voting no. For a proposition that had 70%+ African American support they should have taken the president elects support to the bank early and often.
I'm glad that people are passionate, they should have done this before.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Farm animals > Gays
Prop 8
Yes
5,344,012
52%
No
4,854,132
48%
With 99% of the vote in. Prop 2 which says farm animals need to be treated with a bit more care passed with flying colors. So farm animals get more rights and gays get less.
Okay back to only caring about myself. It'll be a few months or perhaps years before this crap is finally overturned. I'm pretty sure it'll need to be decided at the 9th circuit level in order to strike down the constitutional amendment. Even if your case is a solid winner it takes a while to get up to that level.
Yes
5,344,012
52%
No
4,854,132
48%
With 99% of the vote in. Prop 2 which says farm animals need to be treated with a bit more care passed with flying colors. So farm animals get more rights and gays get less.
Okay back to only caring about myself. It'll be a few months or perhaps years before this crap is finally overturned. I'm pretty sure it'll need to be decided at the 9th circuit level in order to strike down the constitutional amendment. Even if your case is a solid winner it takes a while to get up to that level.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Prop H8 is close, but there's bigger fish to fry.
Anybody notice that the trend lines on the proposition looks like a Jesus fish?
Freaky.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Why gay marriage is constitutional.
The Loving v. Virgina case was settled on the grounds of equal rights by the 14th amendment. If I have a right everybody has the same right. I have the right to marry a white women, therefore everybody has the right. It does not suffice to suggest that everybody has the right to marry somebody of their own race. Likewise I have the right to marry a women, so everybody has the right to marry a woman. Thusly, even women have the right to marry women. Equal protection under the law legalizes gay marriage without needing to say anything about it being gay.
It is a restriction on my rights to say that my sister can do something that I cannot do. Although, I have no yen to marry men, it's a right and must be equally honored for all people. It isn't gay marriage which is being restricted by prohibitions against gay marriage. It's the rights of all individuals to marry those of the same sex... even though only gay people would care to do so.
When gay marriage is legalized by the supreme court, that'll be the logic behind it.
Update:
Adding Video, via Pandagon
It is a restriction on my rights to say that my sister can do something that I cannot do. Although, I have no yen to marry men, it's a right and must be equally honored for all people. It isn't gay marriage which is being restricted by prohibitions against gay marriage. It's the rights of all individuals to marry those of the same sex... even though only gay people would care to do so.
When gay marriage is legalized by the supreme court, that'll be the logic behind it.
Update:
Adding Video, via Pandagon
Thursday, October 23, 2008
California Propositions
Yes on 1a, 2, 3, 5, 12.
These are official SSnot endorsements.
1A High Speed Rail -- Trains might actually be kind of nice.
2 Farm Animal Conditions -- The standard claims of animal rights and from groups like PETA tend to try to exploit the desire for animal welfare with animal rights. While the former is a position everybody agrees with the latter is fairly silly. That said, this prop supports the former and suggests that farm animals shouldn't be forced into tiny boxes and never get to move around until they are killed for food.
3 Children's Hospital Bonds -- This sounds like something you'd call a proposition that creates death camps and forces people into slavery. Who would vote against Children's Hospitals? According to latest polling very few and according to the letter of the proposition it does what it says it does.
4 Parental Notification -- If a kid is under 18 and wants an abortion they gotta tell their parents. This is about as extreme as the pro-life people could get a bill in the state. The latest PPIC finally has it polling as a fail.
5 Drug Rehab Programs -- We love our drugs and our forced drug rehab rather than prisons.
6 Anti-Gang -- No, LOVE THE PRISONS INSTEAD!
7 Renewable Power Standard - Seems to force up the amount of renewable energy requrements at different levels but groups like the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists because they say it's really poorly written.
8 Anti-Marriage -- Removes the constitutional rights of certain individuals to enter into a private contract because we hate them. Thankfully the PPIC study finally has this polling at a loss. The No on 8 crew sucked. They were caught completely offguard by a large influx of Mormon money pushing for a yes vote. "Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that would end same-sex marriage in California, is losing among likely voters, 52 percent to 44 percent" -- After the silly laws against same sex marriage were overturned and the polling looked good then no so good and now good again.
9 Victim's Rights -- REALLY! LOVE YOURSELF SOME PRISONS!
10 Pickens Natural Gas -- Eh, no. Pickens doesn't seem like a bad guy from the commercials but screw giving him massive amounts of money. Sierra Club again against. I like my fighters for an energy secure future far from fossil fuels to not advocate switching to fossil fuels, especially one he has a massive stake in.
11 Redistricting -- Fair redistricting is a massive loss for the Democrats. If the dems can't draw the lines then a number of seats will be lost. I have nothing in principle against redistricting or against fair redistricting... but unless every state does it it's going to be a strong disadvantage to one party over another. Take the proportional delegate amendments that come up in California here and there, those serve only to make the Republicans win the presidency if they passed. BTW the PPIC polling says Obama is up by 23 points in California.
12 Veterans Bonds -- Much like the childrens hospital it's hard to vote against helping veterans.
These are official SSnot endorsements.
1A High Speed Rail -- Trains might actually be kind of nice.
2 Farm Animal Conditions -- The standard claims of animal rights and from groups like PETA tend to try to exploit the desire for animal welfare with animal rights. While the former is a position everybody agrees with the latter is fairly silly. That said, this prop supports the former and suggests that farm animals shouldn't be forced into tiny boxes and never get to move around until they are killed for food.
3 Children's Hospital Bonds -- This sounds like something you'd call a proposition that creates death camps and forces people into slavery. Who would vote against Children's Hospitals? According to latest polling very few and according to the letter of the proposition it does what it says it does.
4 Parental Notification -- If a kid is under 18 and wants an abortion they gotta tell their parents. This is about as extreme as the pro-life people could get a bill in the state. The latest PPIC finally has it polling as a fail.
5 Drug Rehab Programs -- We love our drugs and our forced drug rehab rather than prisons.
6 Anti-Gang -- No, LOVE THE PRISONS INSTEAD!
7 Renewable Power Standard - Seems to force up the amount of renewable energy requrements at different levels but groups like the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists because they say it's really poorly written.
8 Anti-Marriage -- Removes the constitutional rights of certain individuals to enter into a private contract because we hate them. Thankfully the PPIC study finally has this polling at a loss. The No on 8 crew sucked. They were caught completely offguard by a large influx of Mormon money pushing for a yes vote. "Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that would end same-sex marriage in California, is losing among likely voters, 52 percent to 44 percent" -- After the silly laws against same sex marriage were overturned and the polling looked good then no so good and now good again.
9 Victim's Rights -- REALLY! LOVE YOURSELF SOME PRISONS!
10 Pickens Natural Gas -- Eh, no. Pickens doesn't seem like a bad guy from the commercials but screw giving him massive amounts of money. Sierra Club again against. I like my fighters for an energy secure future far from fossil fuels to not advocate switching to fossil fuels, especially one he has a massive stake in.
11 Redistricting -- Fair redistricting is a massive loss for the Democrats. If the dems can't draw the lines then a number of seats will be lost. I have nothing in principle against redistricting or against fair redistricting... but unless every state does it it's going to be a strong disadvantage to one party over another. Take the proportional delegate amendments that come up in California here and there, those serve only to make the Republicans win the presidency if they passed. BTW the PPIC polling says Obama is up by 23 points in California.
12 Veterans Bonds -- Much like the childrens hospital it's hard to vote against helping veterans.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Not Enough Bigots
A new Field Poll survey is out which suggests that the there aren't enough bigots in California to make gay marriage illegal again. A similar poll from several days ago seemed to indicate that it might pass. A majority seemed to disagree with the supreme courts ruling (a bunch of legal scholars to be sure) whereas even there simply isn't much care to strike it down again.
Personally I think the marriage industry in California is about to go Vegas. I'm still sticking to my prediction that the voters will never legalize gay marriage and that fight shall be won in the courts. That's the way civil rights fights go.
Personally I think the marriage industry in California is about to go Vegas. I'm still sticking to my prediction that the voters will never legalize gay marriage and that fight shall be won in the courts. That's the way civil rights fights go.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Shit meet Fan, Adam marry Steve, Justice meet Reality!
California gay marriage legal after same-sex marriage ban is struck down by California Supreme Court. It's about time.
Classic phrase in article:
Pro-family agenda == No family for you!
Classic phrase in article:
Groups saying they were promoting a pro-family agenda had vowed to fight a statewide law allowing same-sex marriage.
Pro-family agenda == No family for you!
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Prediction: Christian Gay Rights Movement
In the future, Christians will be arguing that Christianity was responsible for the success of the Gay Rights Movement (after it's successful).
Theology Non-Rule #9: Whenever there is a group of secular people supporting a cause and a few secular minded Christians in opposition to the more religious Bible believing Christians, if the secular group is shown to be correct this is a Christian victory for morality. This shows Christianity is just, tolerant, and the source of all morality.
In the past, it was common to find bigotry against gays for their sexual orientation and many people derided it as a "choice". However, some good and pious Christians stood up to this bigotry, and through a lot of struggle and hard work secured the rights of homosexuals. You see, without Christian love and tolerance, and the Christian understanding that all people are created equal in God's eyes this injustice would still exist today! Just as Christianity stood up against the supporters of slavery during the abolitionist movement and launched the civil rights movement, Christians are, through their faith in God and the expectations of the Almighty, compelled to fight injustice. - Faith head circa 2030.
Theology Non-Rule #9: Whenever there is a group of secular people supporting a cause and a few secular minded Christians in opposition to the more religious Bible believing Christians, if the secular group is shown to be correct this is a Christian victory for morality. This shows Christianity is just, tolerant, and the source of all morality.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Christian nation? Why not white nation?
The argument goes that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation, by Christians for Christians and anybody who disagrees can just shut the fuck up. However, a lot of the founding father's were deists. They honestly had to be. They were going against the king, God's chosen ruler, and that's not something good Christians do. It was about half a dozen presidents before we hit a real Christian. However, if the logic still holds here, might I offer a stronger argument?
The United States was founded as a White Nation. All of the founding fathers have been white. All of the presidents have been white. Rather than demanding religious freedom for all religions in the constitution, which goes against the Christian Nation idea, it was rather clearly spelled out that the freedoms only extended to whites.
Why is it that this nation is a Christian nation, but not also an English-Speaking, White, Male nation? Certainly those who demand white supremacy quite often advocate Christian supremacy as well. Everything old is new again.
We are also seeing the exact same arguments recrafted from the ashes of the interracial marriage debates rehashed in the gay marriage debates. Oh, if God wanted the races to marry they would have put them on the same continents, and God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
It should also be noted, that since God has no logical foundations, one can just trot the character out as a walking fallacy. With a fallacy you can prove everything (which is why they are worthless). With faith, all things are possible. With God, all things are possible. So having your personal fallacy ready and willing, with built in taboo of criticism no less, one can provide an argument for indefensible bigotry.
If there are only religious arguments for something, then there are no good arguments for it.
The United States was founded as a White Nation. All of the founding fathers have been white. All of the presidents have been white. Rather than demanding religious freedom for all religions in the constitution, which goes against the Christian Nation idea, it was rather clearly spelled out that the freedoms only extended to whites.
Why is it that this nation is a Christian nation, but not also an English-Speaking, White, Male nation? Certainly those who demand white supremacy quite often advocate Christian supremacy as well. Everything old is new again.
We are also seeing the exact same arguments recrafted from the ashes of the interracial marriage debates rehashed in the gay marriage debates. Oh, if God wanted the races to marry they would have put them on the same continents, and God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
It should also be noted, that since God has no logical foundations, one can just trot the character out as a walking fallacy. With a fallacy you can prove everything (which is why they are worthless). With faith, all things are possible. With God, all things are possible. So having your personal fallacy ready and willing, with built in taboo of criticism no less, one can provide an argument for indefensible bigotry.
If there are only religious arguments for something, then there are no good arguments for it.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Liberal pastor preaches fundamentalism, in a round about way...
The question is a straight forward one. Why is it accepted to defend one's bigotry against gays by referencing one's religion, while it is no longer accepted as a way to defend slavery or opposition to women's suffrage?
Really, he's arguing against cherry picking. He's arguing that you should take all of the Bible or none of the Bible. That if you no longer defend one type of bigotry with the Bible you should no longer be permitted to defend any type of bigotry with it. Well, I have to admit, that's a pretty good point. Lets either bring back slavery or give everybody equal rights regardless who they love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)