U.S. Starts To Mimic Third World Conditions For Access to AIDS Meds - Folks, this aint'good.
Ban to keep lesbian partner away in custody case is struck down - This reverses the opinion of an "activist judge." Where is the religious right complaining about HIM?
Quinn signs anti-bullying legislation into law - Not bad. Not bad at all.
HUD announces policy guidance addressing LGBT discrimination in housing - Good and bad as Pam Spaulding will tell you.
Carcieri vetoes bill to expand R.I. hate crimes law - Override that $!#@
2 comments:
(PART ONE):
Say, where *is* NOM and their supporters since the SCOTUS ruled that we constitute "a class"?! They haven't released a Blog entry of any sort spinning it. In fact, the only brief and peripheral mention of it comes from a Brian Browne e-blast, in which he says, "The Supreme Court ruled this week 5-4 that a public law school could require all student groups to accept all students for membership and leadership (Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez). No sooner had the ruling come down than the supposedly conservative lawyer Ted Olson released to the press a letter to Judge Walker, claiming that this new ruling supports his anti-Prop 8 claim that sexual orientation is a suspect class, entitled to special Constitutional protection, and that there is no possible distinction in that class between status and behavior. (That is, he argues that the right not be judged for your orientation, which you may not control, also includes the right not to be judged for your sexual behavior, which obviously you do control--if not you, who?)"
No where do they actually quote Ginsburg's opinion! They just seem to infer that the opinion likely doesn't support Olson's case! However, the opposite is true...Ginsburg called us "an identifiable class"! Also notice how he declares that being terated equally under the law is somehow "special Constitutional protection"! But, of course, there followers will buy into his every word. After all, Maggie has them convinced that any and every Gay-positive protection extended to us through the law is a direct threat to her so-called "peoples of faith" (ie, Christians), unless they stop us! Their supporters often brag about how we HAVE to take our case to the courts to win, because we could never win in the Court of Public opinion if our rights were ever put to a vote. Of course, she refused to accept the fact that NO civil rights struggle has EVER been put to a popular vote before the "People"! They would have lost, if they had.
All my best,
Wade@MacMorrighan.Net
(PART TWO):
Hell, some also believe that Churches will be sued or be forced to perform marriages between two men or two women against their will--and, that simply isn't true! And, I have tried to explain to them numerous times that it is THEY--not us--who is attempting to redefine secular and civil marriage for everyone else! I even cited numerous examples of societies and cultures in which marriages between two men or two women were endorsed and allowed. They reacted as though I were lying, and not to be trusted... They also kept insisiting that "marriage" was apparently God-ordained! Why don't we make THESE people, and THEIR words, and THEIR beliefs and views a part of a campaign to protect our rights, instead of trying to be "the good guys"! The American people should know what the supporters of such legislation REALLY believe. Many of them even want divorce out-lawed! But, when asked why they don't target divorce, they declared that they have to PROTECT marriage before they STRENGTHEN it!
They also refuse to accept that they are bigots! But, that makes me wonder if there's a psychological disorder in which one is a bigot, but refuses to accept that?
All my best,
Wade@MacMorrighan.Net
Post a Comment