Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Abandons Gay Rights Bill
andrewagill writes "Microsoft has withdrawn support from a bill that would "protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, banking, insurance, and other matters by adding sexual orientation to a state law which already bars discrimination" of the other usual suspects. Odd, given their previous accolades from the GLBT community, and their prior public support for the bill."
The full article can be found here:l
http://www.thestranger.com/2005-04-21/feature.htm
He has noting on him.
The bill was basically stalled as many other unrelated things got tacked onto it. The spirit of the bill was so diluted it was useless.
MS will support a new bill, which adheres to the original with none of the extra fluff.
Heh...ironically enough, that is PRECISELY what gay and lesbian people are after - to be treated like everybody else. Too bad you missed the memo on how that currently is NOT the case...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but here's a quote from the good Pastor, during the Senate Hearing on HB1515, on March 22nd:
(He then went on to say that homosexuals want to molest young boys.)
Sorry, but with that sort of intolerance, this man has no right to call himself a servant of God.
All his parishoners should be ashamed.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Um, no. Marches and political clout are to *precisely* get us what you already have. I must have missed the memo about how we're trying to take over the world or something. We're not trying to legislate how we're thought of; we just want the same *rights*.
What rights? Lets just look at marriage rights, shall we? Here's just a handful.
* Access to social security after a spouse's death
* Access to health ensurance through the spouse's workplace
* The right to custody of children after divorce
* Visitation rights for non-biological children
* Joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
* Bereveament leave after death of a spouse
* Burial determination after the death of a spouse
* Domestic violence intervention
* Sick leave to care for a spouse or non-biological child
* Legal validation of a long term relationship
* Ability to live in neighborhoods deemed "families only"
* Access to life insurance in spouse's workplace
* Access to survivor benefits in case of emergency
* Access to spouse's crime victims' recovery benefits
* Ability to file wrongful death claims
* Right to shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
* Ability to file joint home and auto insurance policies
* Joint rental leases with automatic renewal if spouse dies or leaves
* Access to adopting children
* Automatic inheritance of shared assets after spouse's death
* Automatic inheritance of retirement savings tax-free after spouse's death
* Automatic exemption of property tax increases on shared assets gained after spouse's death
* Ability to file joint tax returns
* Access to tax breaks for married couples
* Assumption of spouse's pension after death
* Ability to file joint bankruptcy
* Ability to collect unemployment benefit after leaving a job to relocate because of spouse's job move
* Ability to transfer property from one spouse to aother without transfer tax consequences
* Access to fostering children
* Automatic next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions and hospital visitation status
* Immigration and residency priority for spouses from other countries
* Ability to invoke spousal privilege in a court of law
* Access to reduced rate memberships at health clubs, social clubs, organizations.
* Prison visitation rights
Many, many more.
We're tired of being second class citizens. Sick of it, really. I can just picture you, back in the 1960s, claiming that blacks "just want political clout and to march". It's the same sort of tripe that they got then, and we're taking it now.
Marriage is not "a different animal". First off, just from a technical perspective, civil unions are generally pretty worthless. the most important benefits are at the federal level. Many private benefits are simply based on the word "marriage" as well (private organizations have the right to exclude same sex couples if they want, and few would argue them that, despite what Fox News and the like tell you; the issue is that many organizations simply want a legal status, and use whatever the government decides is "married"). Civil unions are "consolation prize"; separate-but-equal (but not really equal) really sucks.
But most importantly of all: It is not *your* institution. Because *your* church, or whatnot, says that it's wrong, means nothing to me. My partner and I were married in a Unitarian church; they recognize and honor same sex marriages. Who are *you* to say that my religion's viewpoint is of lesser value than your own?
The American Anthropological Society completely disagrees with the notion that marriage has always been as it is now, and that same sex marriages are either ahistorical or harmful. Hundreds of societies throughout history have had them. Up until recently, interracial marriages were illegal in the US. Before that, marriages between African Americans were banned, period. For the
"It felt almost as good as stealing cars from grandma." -- Margaret Thatcher, probably.
Some sources from the article:
I'd quote more, but, y'know, RTFA.
hooked up funny
Hey, that's what you get by having majorities imposing laws on minorities. Never worked and never will.
In Canada there is the Charter of Rights And Freedoms. Especially look at #15.
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
In Canada, the Supreme Court rules that the current marriage act discriminates against gay/lesbians on this basis (ie. don't have the same rights under the law). http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/09 /scoc-gaymarriage041209.html
Gay marriage is already law in many provinces now, but it is be voted federally soon.
The earliest records we have of marriage ceremonies is 2350 BCE in Mesopotamia and had little to do with love or religion in any way, shape or form.
It was intended to bind women (yes, more than one) to a man so that any children born to that woman were guaranteed to be of the man's seed. They were simply baby makers. Property of the men to continue their lineage. If the woman was failing to produce offspring the man was allowed to give her back.
In Greece and Rome the married men were free to satisfy their sexual urges however they saw fit. Concubines, prostitutes and, if they so desired, male lovers.
As Catholicism gained influence in Europe it became necessary for a wedding to be performed by a priest for it to be a legally recognized marriage. It wasn't until the 1500's that marriage was written into canon law as a sacrament.
So your vision of marriage is essentially a 500 year old institution. While for the previous 3500 men were free to marry many women and cavort on the side with ladies of the night. Which is it? The real traditional marriage or the one that you've been told to think is traditional when it's anything but?
From http://www.christiangays.com/marriage/rite.shtml
Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.
Actually, the world isn't that simple. There is a continuum between male and female, and a surpring number of children are born into it ("intersexed") to some degree. For those with true hermaphroditism, to a significant degree (somewhat rare, but still extant), often the call between "male" and "female" might as well be made by the toss of the coin. Historically, most of them would be made into girls, because it was traditional practice to perform surgery right away, and the surgery is easier. Nowadays, this is largely rejected - there have been very high rates of gender identity disorder among such children, and even those who don't have problems with their assigned gender, often grow up quite mad at having the procedure done to them without their consent.
These aren't just "little differences" or mutations that "look like" male or female. The gonads can often be intermediary between testes and ovaries. There can be an organ intermediary between a penis and clitoris. The uretrha can be at its base or even on its side. Etc. Where do you draw the line?
If you're going to say chromosomes, think again. In fact, there are many women out there with CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome). They're XY, but for all effective purposes, they seem like normal women (although are usually infertile; rarer conditions have led to fertile XY women). A minor genetic defect leads their androgen receptors to not bind to early developmental androgens, causing the body not to masculinize. Should these women only be allowed to marry other women? There are many other cases - other types of XY women, XX men, and things like XXY, XYY, etc. One case of a perfectly normal seeming XY woman was traced down to a mere *two* base pair mutation.
Humanity tends to gravitate toward two extremes, but that doesn't change the fact that gender is a continuum. Draconian binary laws aren't appropriate for such situations.
Besides, even if there was some sort of absolute "difference", some unbridgable chasm: who are you to say that marriage must be between two "different" entities? Many cultures throughout history have completely disagreed with you.
"It felt almost as good as stealing cars from grandma." -- Margaret Thatcher, probably.
Knowing almost nothing about that case, and being for state's rights, and knowing that the word "sodomy" does not appear in the US Constitution
Look at Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Many would argue that "others retained by the people" include the right to perform consensual gay sex acts on private property.