Arkansas makes a possible boo boo
Wasn't Michelle Obama awesome last night? Personally I think she nailed her speech. And her two little girls were just adorable.
How can anyone vote against that family?
But seriously, in all of the hoopla about a presidential election, we sometimes forget state votes that could have a negative impact on our lives.
It happened in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected. During that same time, Colorado passed a mindbogglingly bad law that prevented the state from passing any laws prohibiting anti-gay discrimination.
It was overturned by the US Supreme Court in 1996. If this law had not been overturned, the effects on our fight for rights and self-determination would have been disastrous. Laws like it would have popped up virtually all over the country.
And I don't think I have to rehash the anti-gay marriage laws that passed in 2004. To this day, some people still say that they were the key to the re-election of Bush.
So now in 2008 comes the following, courtesy of Arkansas:
A proposal aimed at effectively banning gays and lesbians from becoming foster or adoptive parents was cleared Monday to appear on this fall's ballot in Arkansas.
The measure would prohibit unmarried couples living together from fostering or adopting children, and Arkansas doesn't allow gays to marry or recognize gay marriages conducted elsewhere.
Secretary of State Charlie Daniels certified the proposed initiated act for the Nov. 4 ballot after verifying that the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee had submitted 85,389 valid signatures of registered voters. Supporters needed to turn in at least 61,974 valid signatures.
"Arkansas needs to affirm the importance of married mothers and fathers," Family Council President Jerry Cox said. "We need to publicly affirm the gold standard of rearing children whenever we can. The state standard should be as close to that gold standard of married mom and dad homes as possible."
This proposed law is pernicious on so many levels. It illustrates how the anti-gay industry is willing to distort while at the same time trumpet how they stand for morals.
The part about unmarried couples is a dodge because the Arkansas court recently said that a ban on gay adoption is unlawful. So the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee can't come out and say to keep lgbts from adopting is the purpose of the law, but everyone knows that is the case.
Apparently ducking and dodging is now a Christian value.
Of course lgbt couples can get around this law if it is passed by using surrogates or sperm donations.
And it is here where we see just who the law will hurt.
For all of the bluster about it, this proposed law does not guarantee that foster children will end up in two-parent heterosexual households. It neither encourages nor mandates that two-parent heterosexual households take foster children in.
Jerry Cox and those like him all over the country are constantly saying that "children have a right to a mother and father." Well this is all well and good but this law does not guarantee them that right.
In fact, it does just the opposite.
It eliminate choices based on outdated concepts of family. It is also based on an inaccurate assumption that unmarried couples (be they heterosexual or lgbt) are stealing foster children away from two-parent heterosexual households.
Based on the number of children in foster care nationwide, that's not happening.
This law is about symbolism, not actualities.
And it's a shame because a child can't get love from a symbol.
But the real shame is that in their attempts to get at the lgbt community, the anti-gay industry in Arkansas aimed wrong and kicked foster children squarely in the mouth.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
All eyes on Denver
This week will be a drag regarding news about the anti-gay industry.
You all know why. This is the week of the Democratic National Convention so all eyes are on Denver as the media will pontificate, guesstimate, and, in the case of Fox News and others like them, try to throw a monkeywrench in on the proceedings.
And the majority of the heavy hitting progressive bloggers are there also.
Oh well, there is always 2012 for me.
Seriously though, my guess is that the anti-gay industry will have their forces all keyed to making Obama look like a sepia Damien Thorne.
One good thing about him getting the nomination is how it threw everything into chaos. I think the anti-gay industry, et. al. were expecting Clinton to get the nomination and they were counting on her to galvanize supporters who are not necessarily sold on McCain.
How the pedulum turns.
Other than watching the convention, I think that I am going to take time out this week to work on several projects, including my other blog.
This is not to say that I am taking a break. We all know how the anti-gay industry is.
No rest for the wicked.
This week will be a drag regarding news about the anti-gay industry.
You all know why. This is the week of the Democratic National Convention so all eyes are on Denver as the media will pontificate, guesstimate, and, in the case of Fox News and others like them, try to throw a monkeywrench in on the proceedings.
And the majority of the heavy hitting progressive bloggers are there also.
Oh well, there is always 2012 for me.
Seriously though, my guess is that the anti-gay industry will have their forces all keyed to making Obama look like a sepia Damien Thorne.
One good thing about him getting the nomination is how it threw everything into chaos. I think the anti-gay industry, et. al. were expecting Clinton to get the nomination and they were counting on her to galvanize supporters who are not necessarily sold on McCain.
How the pedulum turns.
Other than watching the convention, I think that I am going to take time out this week to work on several projects, including my other blog.
This is not to say that I am taking a break. We all know how the anti-gay industry is.
No rest for the wicked.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Hallmark joins the 'overthrow of America'
In my best faux European accent - Our operatives tells me that we were able to elicit Hallmark Greeting Cards in our plans to overturn Christian values in America. With them selling cards congratulating gay couples on their marriages, nothing can stop us now.
Okay that was corny but I only did it to give a gist of the mindset of the anti-gay industry. Apparently they are all up in arms with Hallmark's decision to start selling gay marriage greeting cards.
In fact, the American Family Association will be launching a boycott:
Today, the right-wing American Family Association (AFA) announced a protest of Hallmark for its decision to start selling gay marriage greeting cards. AFA wants Hallmark to “stop promoting a lifestyle that is not only unhealthy, but is also illegal in 48 states.” From the protest site:
We’ve all given or received Hallmark Cards – remember their slogan – “when you care enough to send the very best.” But promoting same-sex marriage for profit is not the very best for families or our nation.
Hallmark is a private company obviously driven by greed. Let them know you do not appreciate Hallmark promoting a lifestyle which is illegal in 48 states. American Greeting Cards, Hallmark’s competitor, does not offer same-sex marriage cards.
Enough of the semantics already! Hallmark is selling these greeting cards because of the old reliable concept of supply and demand.
God bless capitalism. If you don't agree with the concept of gay marriage greeting cards, then don't buy any.
But don't waste your time telling that to the AFA. The group continues to push the lie that anything recognizing the fact that lgbts are normal people and should be catered to and treated as such is really part of a nefarious plan to destroy Christianity.
Somehow I just know Janet Folger is going to connect Hallmark with putting Christians in jail. Or Peter will connect the company with Folsom Street Fair.
What kills me about the AFA is their intentional deception regarding the legality of gay marriage - Hallmark is a private company obviously driven by greed. Let them know you do not appreciate Hallmark promoting a lifestyle which is illegal in 48 states.
That passage is not accidental nor is it a product of an overeager publicity writer. It's an intentional distortion.
Same-sex marriage is not illegal per se. True, it is not legally recognized but it is not against the law. The illegality of an act entails penalities such as arrests and jail terms.
I personally think that the AFA has stock in Hallmark, especially when one considers how successful their boycott against McDonalds is going.
I'm expecting Hallmark's sales to go through the roof.
In my best faux European accent - Our operatives tells me that we were able to elicit Hallmark Greeting Cards in our plans to overturn Christian values in America. With them selling cards congratulating gay couples on their marriages, nothing can stop us now.
Okay that was corny but I only did it to give a gist of the mindset of the anti-gay industry. Apparently they are all up in arms with Hallmark's decision to start selling gay marriage greeting cards.
In fact, the American Family Association will be launching a boycott:
Today, the right-wing American Family Association (AFA) announced a protest of Hallmark for its decision to start selling gay marriage greeting cards. AFA wants Hallmark to “stop promoting a lifestyle that is not only unhealthy, but is also illegal in 48 states.” From the protest site:
We’ve all given or received Hallmark Cards – remember their slogan – “when you care enough to send the very best.” But promoting same-sex marriage for profit is not the very best for families or our nation.
Hallmark is a private company obviously driven by greed. Let them know you do not appreciate Hallmark promoting a lifestyle which is illegal in 48 states. American Greeting Cards, Hallmark’s competitor, does not offer same-sex marriage cards.
Enough of the semantics already! Hallmark is selling these greeting cards because of the old reliable concept of supply and demand.
God bless capitalism. If you don't agree with the concept of gay marriage greeting cards, then don't buy any.
But don't waste your time telling that to the AFA. The group continues to push the lie that anything recognizing the fact that lgbts are normal people and should be catered to and treated as such is really part of a nefarious plan to destroy Christianity.
Somehow I just know Janet Folger is going to connect Hallmark with putting Christians in jail. Or Peter will connect the company with Folsom Street Fair.
What kills me about the AFA is their intentional deception regarding the legality of gay marriage - Hallmark is a private company obviously driven by greed. Let them know you do not appreciate Hallmark promoting a lifestyle which is illegal in 48 states.
That passage is not accidental nor is it a product of an overeager publicity writer. It's an intentional distortion.
Same-sex marriage is not illegal per se. True, it is not legally recognized but it is not against the law. The illegality of an act entails penalities such as arrests and jail terms.
I personally think that the AFA has stock in Hallmark, especially when one considers how successful their boycott against McDonalds is going.
I'm expecting Hallmark's sales to go through the roof.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Is the Family Research Council distorting another study?
From the Family Research Council's 25 Pro-Family Goals For The Nation:
In addition to deliberately creating and affirming motherless or fatherless families, other harms would result from same-sex “marriage.” Homosexuals are less likely to enter long-term partnerships, less likely to be sexually faithful, and less likely to remain committed for a lifetime. Commitment, sexual fidelity, and lifelong marriage would all decline if the behavior of homosexuals is incorporated into society’s concept of marriage. Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow. Religious liberty and freedom of speech would also suffer, since opposition to same-sex “marriage” would be treated as the equivalent of racial bigotry."
I have just emailed the Family Research Council asking where did they receive this information regarding gay marriage. I have an idea as to what study they got this information from. And if it's what I think, then the Family Research Council will have a lot of explaining to do.
My guess is that they used a study completed in the Netherlands by one Dr. Maria Xiridou. If this is the case, they took the study out of context big time.
You see, the 2003 published study's objective was “to access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).”
The study only looked at casual relationships amongst gay men and was completed before same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands.
There are other facts about Dr. Xiridou's study that speaks to how it cannot be used to gauge monogamy amongst lgbts in general. But I won't bring that up until I get an answer from the Family Research Council
If I don't get an answer back via email, then I will be calling their 1-800 number.
I will keep you all posted.
From the Family Research Council's 25 Pro-Family Goals For The Nation:
In addition to deliberately creating and affirming motherless or fatherless families, other harms would result from same-sex “marriage.” Homosexuals are less likely to enter long-term partnerships, less likely to be sexually faithful, and less likely to remain committed for a lifetime. Commitment, sexual fidelity, and lifelong marriage would all decline if the behavior of homosexuals is incorporated into society’s concept of marriage. Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow. Religious liberty and freedom of speech would also suffer, since opposition to same-sex “marriage” would be treated as the equivalent of racial bigotry."
I have just emailed the Family Research Council asking where did they receive this information regarding gay marriage. I have an idea as to what study they got this information from. And if it's what I think, then the Family Research Council will have a lot of explaining to do.
My guess is that they used a study completed in the Netherlands by one Dr. Maria Xiridou. If this is the case, they took the study out of context big time.
You see, the 2003 published study's objective was “to access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).”
The study only looked at casual relationships amongst gay men and was completed before same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands.
There are other facts about Dr. Xiridou's study that speaks to how it cannot be used to gauge monogamy amongst lgbts in general. But I won't bring that up until I get an answer from the Family Research Council
If I don't get an answer back via email, then I will be calling their 1-800 number.
I will keep you all posted.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Jerome Corsi and his fancy toilet paper
I am sure many of you know about the Jerome Corsi book that tries to skewer Barack Obama.
Corsi, who wrote a book about Sen. John Kerry four years ago during time in which Kerry was running against Bush for president, claims that this book will show the real Obama.
Please.
This book is a piece of crap and everyone knows it. It recycles some of the worst lies about Obama and creates a few more. Corsi is so scandalous that he even talks about Obama's mother.
But it is the number one book on the New York Times best seller list thanks to a skilled campaign of bullshit emanating from the right.
Corsi gets featured on Fox News unopposed in his lies on several occasions, conservative columnists (such as those on Town Hall and One News Now) give Corsi attention, conservative groups buy Corsi's book in bulk . . .
and lo and behold, we have to divert time away from real issues to talk about a smear job.
Whatever happened to true journalists like Edward R. Murrow, who would have devoted a significant bit of time to call out this bullshit, just like he did to Senator Joseph McCarthy.
With the crop of "journalists" we have now, McCarthy would probably be canonized.
LGBT For Obama - an excellent site.
I am sure many of you know about the Jerome Corsi book that tries to skewer Barack Obama.
Corsi, who wrote a book about Sen. John Kerry four years ago during time in which Kerry was running against Bush for president, claims that this book will show the real Obama.
Please.
This book is a piece of crap and everyone knows it. It recycles some of the worst lies about Obama and creates a few more. Corsi is so scandalous that he even talks about Obama's mother.
But it is the number one book on the New York Times best seller list thanks to a skilled campaign of bullshit emanating from the right.
Corsi gets featured on Fox News unopposed in his lies on several occasions, conservative columnists (such as those on Town Hall and One News Now) give Corsi attention, conservative groups buy Corsi's book in bulk . . .
and lo and behold, we have to divert time away from real issues to talk about a smear job.
Whatever happened to true journalists like Edward R. Murrow, who would have devoted a significant bit of time to call out this bullshit, just like he did to Senator Joseph McCarthy.
With the crop of "journalists" we have now, McCarthy would probably be canonized.
LGBT For Obama - an excellent site.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
More good news from California
It's slowly shaping up to be a very good week thanks to the lovely folks in California:
Court decisions forcing same-sex "marriage" on California and Massachusetts have had a predictable side effect -- an increase in adoption by homosexual couples.
The Associated Press recently produced a feature article titled, "More gay men embrace marriage, fatherhood." The report was all but an endorsement of homosexual adoption, according to Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. - Homosexual adoption increases in California, One News Now
Naturally the One News Now article only features the comments of our dear pet homophobe Peter LaBarbera. But his comments are hilarious:
"What is incorrigible about this coverage from Associated Press is that it is totally absent of any critical coverage; I mean serious coverage examining the effects of homosexual 'parenting,' bringing in public policy data, even bringing in pro-family critics," argues LaBarbera.
By critical coverage from "pro-family" critics, Peter means that the Associated Press should ask the opinion of so-called experts that the anti-gay industry prop up. You know who I am talking about - folks with absolutely no experience in the field they claim to be experts in but who can be counted on to give a good soundbite.
And by all means, let them be the head of a phony group with a credible sounding name, like the Center for Parental Readiness or the American Christian Adoption Association, or The Center Dedicated to Keep Children Away from Those Nasty Homosexuals.
And I love this part of the article:
LaBarbera says that, as with any media discussion of homosexual involvement with children, there was no mention in the AP story of the harm to the children.
I know why there was no mention of it. Because there is NONE. There has never been a legitimate study that has said that children in same-sex homes are harmed because of the orientation of their parents. Of course there are some studies, like those by Paul Cameron. And other claims, like those of Linda Harvey.
But they are as credible as a Klansman advocating racial harmony.
And then there is the piece de resistance:
" . . . you have this ridiculous situation in which these professional adoption organizations are talking about crossing the t's and dotting the i's. Meanwhile, they're intentionally placing children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design," LaBarbera points out.
I don't care what anyone says, I am convinced that these anti-gay groups have weekly meetings where they bounce phraseologies off of each other. These phraseologies cover up the fact that their positions have nothing behind them that resemble facts.
" . . . Intentionally placing children in homes that motherless and fatherless by design?"
What the hell does that mean anyway? Is there some conspiracy between professional adoption organizations and the lgbt community? Peter seems to be inferring to the old Anita Bryant nonsense of "gay recruitment."
For the last time, let me say something about that. If lgbts were recruiting, we wouldn't be going after children. We would be going after celebrities.
I personally would chair the committees to turn the following celebrities gay:
Philip Seymour Hoffman,
Patton Oswald,
Jonah Hill,
Jon Heder
Beck,
David Spade (sue me, I'm kinky),
and that Cute Bald Wrestler with the Hairy Back Gay.
But in Peter's defense, he does bring up a good idea. I am all for giving one of those phony "pro-family" studies or spokespeople room to hang themselves with their distorted positions.
After all, giving Elaine Donnelly a forum did wonders for gays in the military.
It's slowly shaping up to be a very good week thanks to the lovely folks in California:
Court decisions forcing same-sex "marriage" on California and Massachusetts have had a predictable side effect -- an increase in adoption by homosexual couples.
The Associated Press recently produced a feature article titled, "More gay men embrace marriage, fatherhood." The report was all but an endorsement of homosexual adoption, according to Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. - Homosexual adoption increases in California, One News Now
Naturally the One News Now article only features the comments of our dear pet homophobe Peter LaBarbera. But his comments are hilarious:
"What is incorrigible about this coverage from Associated Press is that it is totally absent of any critical coverage; I mean serious coverage examining the effects of homosexual 'parenting,' bringing in public policy data, even bringing in pro-family critics," argues LaBarbera.
By critical coverage from "pro-family" critics, Peter means that the Associated Press should ask the opinion of so-called experts that the anti-gay industry prop up. You know who I am talking about - folks with absolutely no experience in the field they claim to be experts in but who can be counted on to give a good soundbite.
And by all means, let them be the head of a phony group with a credible sounding name, like the Center for Parental Readiness or the American Christian Adoption Association, or The Center Dedicated to Keep Children Away from Those Nasty Homosexuals.
And I love this part of the article:
LaBarbera says that, as with any media discussion of homosexual involvement with children, there was no mention in the AP story of the harm to the children.
I know why there was no mention of it. Because there is NONE. There has never been a legitimate study that has said that children in same-sex homes are harmed because of the orientation of their parents. Of course there are some studies, like those by Paul Cameron. And other claims, like those of Linda Harvey.
But they are as credible as a Klansman advocating racial harmony.
And then there is the piece de resistance:
" . . . you have this ridiculous situation in which these professional adoption organizations are talking about crossing the t's and dotting the i's. Meanwhile, they're intentionally placing children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design," LaBarbera points out.
I don't care what anyone says, I am convinced that these anti-gay groups have weekly meetings where they bounce phraseologies off of each other. These phraseologies cover up the fact that their positions have nothing behind them that resemble facts.
" . . . Intentionally placing children in homes that motherless and fatherless by design?"
What the hell does that mean anyway? Is there some conspiracy between professional adoption organizations and the lgbt community? Peter seems to be inferring to the old Anita Bryant nonsense of "gay recruitment."
For the last time, let me say something about that. If lgbts were recruiting, we wouldn't be going after children. We would be going after celebrities.
I personally would chair the committees to turn the following celebrities gay:
Philip Seymour Hoffman,
Patton Oswald,
Jonah Hill,
Jon Heder
Beck,
David Spade (sue me, I'm kinky),
and that Cute Bald Wrestler with the Hairy Back Gay.
But in Peter's defense, he does bring up a good idea. I am all for giving one of those phony "pro-family" studies or spokespeople room to hang themselves with their distorted positions.
After all, giving Elaine Donnelly a forum did wonders for gays in the military.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Two pieces of good news for the Monday blaahs
Everyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows that I hate Mondays.
And this Monday was no different.
But on the positive side, I thought I would spotlight two pieces of good news that should bring a smile to everyone's face;
Good news item #1
S.C. ‘queen’ reigns over ‘America’s Got Talent’
Dorae Saunders, a former Miss Pride Charlotte and star in the movie “Trantasia,” has been chosen among the top 40 contenders in NBC’s “America’s Got Talent.”
The third season of the show will return with live episodes to whittle down the crowd of contestants after NBC’s broadcasts of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
Saunders, a Columbia native, was recognized for accomplishments this past winter by the Carolinas Black Pride Movement and is most widely known for her performance of Tina Turner. The gig has managed to land her a slot on the upcoming “AGT” finals.
Dorae Saunders is a friend of mine. As the video clip shows (click on the link), she is daring, outspoken, and highly talented.
I know I am showing bias by saying this, but I hope she wins.
Good news item #2
Anything that infuriates the anti-gay industry is always a good news item in my book. This particular situation goes farther than that, however. The California Supreme Court stood up for the rights of lgbt parents and averted a potential crisis that could arise via physicians hiding behind their religious beliefs as an excuse not to give lgbts proper medical care:
Doctors Can't Deny Lesbians Care on Religious Grounds
Ruling Was Unamimous, Unlike Legalization of Gay Marriage Case
The California Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that doctors cannot cite their religious beliefs as grounds to deny gay and lesbian patients medical care.
Justice Joyce Kennard ruled that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple cannot claim a free speech or religious exemption from California's anti-discrimination law.
The ruling extends a state law barring sexual orientation-based discrimination to the medical profession.
The case, which drew 40 "friends of the court" briefs, pitted gay advocacy groups against religious and medical organizations.
Guadalupe Benitez, now 36, had maintained that the California medical clinic that was treating her polycystic ovary syndrome had "dumped" her when she asked for artificial insemination.
In 1999, after a year of surgeries and hormone treatments all covered by insurance Benitez was finally ready to get pregnant. But at the crucial moment, her doctor refused to do the procedure for "religious" reasons.
Benitez is a lesbian and sued her doctors under California's civil rights laws, charging that they discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation.
"For me this is a case about doing the right thing and being fair," Benitez told ABCNEWS.com. "Not discriminating against people and doctors not playing the role of God, saying because you are gay, you are not worthy of having a child or a family.
"I did it not only for me, my partner and my children but for other people coming after me, so they don't have to go through the humiliation and frustration and abandonment as a patient," she said.
More here
Ms. Benitez's victory is one for us all. How sweet it is.
Everyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows that I hate Mondays.
And this Monday was no different.
But on the positive side, I thought I would spotlight two pieces of good news that should bring a smile to everyone's face;
Good news item #1
S.C. ‘queen’ reigns over ‘America’s Got Talent’
Dorae Saunders, a former Miss Pride Charlotte and star in the movie “Trantasia,” has been chosen among the top 40 contenders in NBC’s “America’s Got Talent.”
The third season of the show will return with live episodes to whittle down the crowd of contestants after NBC’s broadcasts of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
Saunders, a Columbia native, was recognized for accomplishments this past winter by the Carolinas Black Pride Movement and is most widely known for her performance of Tina Turner. The gig has managed to land her a slot on the upcoming “AGT” finals.
Dorae Saunders is a friend of mine. As the video clip shows (click on the link), she is daring, outspoken, and highly talented.
I know I am showing bias by saying this, but I hope she wins.
Good news item #2
Anything that infuriates the anti-gay industry is always a good news item in my book. This particular situation goes farther than that, however. The California Supreme Court stood up for the rights of lgbt parents and averted a potential crisis that could arise via physicians hiding behind their religious beliefs as an excuse not to give lgbts proper medical care:
Doctors Can't Deny Lesbians Care on Religious Grounds
Ruling Was Unamimous, Unlike Legalization of Gay Marriage Case
The California Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that doctors cannot cite their religious beliefs as grounds to deny gay and lesbian patients medical care.
Justice Joyce Kennard ruled that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple cannot claim a free speech or religious exemption from California's anti-discrimination law.
The ruling extends a state law barring sexual orientation-based discrimination to the medical profession.
The case, which drew 40 "friends of the court" briefs, pitted gay advocacy groups against religious and medical organizations.
Guadalupe Benitez, now 36, had maintained that the California medical clinic that was treating her polycystic ovary syndrome had "dumped" her when she asked for artificial insemination.
In 1999, after a year of surgeries and hormone treatments all covered by insurance Benitez was finally ready to get pregnant. But at the crucial moment, her doctor refused to do the procedure for "religious" reasons.
Benitez is a lesbian and sued her doctors under California's civil rights laws, charging that they discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation.
"For me this is a case about doing the right thing and being fair," Benitez told ABCNEWS.com. "Not discriminating against people and doctors not playing the role of God, saying because you are gay, you are not worthy of having a child or a family.
"I did it not only for me, my partner and my children but for other people coming after me, so they don't have to go through the humiliation and frustration and abandonment as a patient," she said.
More here
Ms. Benitez's victory is one for us all. How sweet it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)