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andrewagill writes "Microsoft has withdrawn support from a bill that would "protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, banking, insurance, and other matters by adding sexual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."
Followed by
An Apple a day keeps the bigot away?As much as I am for civil rights and gay marriage, this is inflammatory. Just because Microsoft changed their stance from pro to neutral (not against), this makes them bigoted? I don't buy that. I don't buy that at all.
This is the same kind of black and white reasoning that George W. Bush uses. "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Just because someone wants to back away from the battle, doesn't mean all of a sudden that they're on the side of the religious right.
I know it's in-fashion to bash Microsoft on this site, but the fellow who wrote this article takes any sort of GBLA equality achievements with a grain of salt. Kind of like giving a donation to a charity the first time around, and being called stingy for not doing so every time.
Sure, it's disappointing that they backed off. Sure, I hope they change their mind, and I hope plenty of people call them. But to call them bigoted for turning neutral (and not against) is simply going too far.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
That Microsoft did this actually this was fairly predictable, even though I too am a strong advocate of gay rights.
Regardless of TFA says, what I think happened is that there is a some major customer of Microsoft software is strongly anti-gay rights (like the Bush run federal government or a large corporation or a major customer who allies itself with the religious right extremists mentioned in TFA) told Microsoft that they wouldn't purchase X 10s of thousands of copies of Office if Microsoft undermined their anti-gay political policies / laws.
Microsoft wants to be known as socially responsible, but faced with a reduction of revenue, their greed took precedent and they became non-political on this issue. Of course they can't publicly admit this backroom concession.
Surely no one here would be surprised that Microsoft went for the money before social responsibility. Heck most companies would do the same thing if enough money was at stake.
Its not users who are broken, it's systems not taking account their likely behaviour and fixing it technically.
Would that be the same consumer market that passed anti-gay marriage laws in 11 different states last November?
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
Now I'll listen to the zealots ticking off the reasons "M$ is teh suxx0rz" and including "they hate fagz" as well, like most of they care.
I have to wonder why this is on the Slashdot front page, and why it's not followed by a list of companies like IBM, Novell, Sun and Red Hat and what their attitude is towards gays and lesbians.
But wait, actually I don't.
okay.... i'll ask....
what the hell does a software company have to do with promoting gay rights? i don't remember any questions to that effect the last time i installed windows...
*hands up in the air..*
*rolls eyes..*
*walks away...*
There is no excuse for discrimination against gays. Microsoft of all companies should know that.
sulli
RTFJ.
Can anyone actually confirm that MS pulled support of this?
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
I take it you never saw the movie "Philadelphia" ?
Let's say you have a picture of your partner on your desk. You might be told that personal pictures are "inappropriate"... even though others have pictures of their wives or husbands on their desks. You might be passed over for promotion, get your hours cut, or fired for "poor performance" or "poor attitude."
Sure, you can be gay at work without anyone knowing... if you never talk about your personal life... and you laugh along with everyone else when someone makes a "faggot" joke... and you express the same level of admiration for this week's actress or calendar model of choice... and you never refer to your partner in any way that sounds like you aren't "just friends"...
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
I'm not sure I understand how a corporations support, or lack there of, for social political issues is relevant..
Allow me to explain. We measure its relevance using a unit known to some as the US Dollar, to others as the "greenback". Legislation in this country needs to be lobbied for. Politicians don't know shit, and don't have much of an incentive to learn about shit unless there is somebody breathing down their neck, using the carrot-and-stick approach to get them to pay attention to an issue. The people who do this, lobbyists, have to be paid by somebody. Since corporations have a lot of money and a common goal within the organization can be easily set, it's pretty straightforward to see how they might hire lobbyists and give them the tools (payola money) to work their trade.
Now you may think in an ideal democracy this isn't how things would work, but that's not the world we live in. Professional, trade, and random interest groups can certainly wield the same power by swinging some dollars around, and representing some bloc of citizens. But without some sort of organized, funded umbrella organization, it is difficult to get your opinion heard by politicians.
So, perhaps it's a little more clear now why Microsoft throwing their weight behind this cause might be relevant?
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
Yeah, I know that's not the best example in the world, but I meant that to demonstrate the millions of ways this could turn into a lawyer-friendly fiasco in record time. If you extend insurance benefits to gay partners (despite their current lack of legal status), do you have to extend it to unmarried straight partners as well? Do gay couples have to file their taxes together, or can they keep the huge tax benefits of filing singly, and if the latter, isn't that discrimination against unmarried straight couples? Do religious groups have to hire gay people even if they are strongly against it? Accept gay volunteers to non-paid positions?
Honestly, either go with gay marriage (or civil unions or some other process of establishing a legal basis in a relationship) or forget these stupid halfway laws that can't possibly be fairly enforced.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Homosexuality is neither a choice (that's long ago been proven scientifically), nor is it particularly a disability. Furthermore, as it's entirely unrelated to capacity to perform most any given job or what have you, there is no reason that discrimination on the basis of sexual preference should be permissable.
Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
The biggest problem with that argument is that there aren't enough people (normal or otherwise) looking to adopt kids. You might not think having a gay couple as foster parents is "normal", or even good, but you'd have a hard time convincing an informed person that growing up in an orphanage is better.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Specifically, a law that is totally unrelated to their industry
Considering the law in no small part had to do with discrimination in employment situations, I would imagine it is totally related to companies that...you know.....employ people.
Christian-bashing was getting lonely as being the only socially acceptable form of discrimination in this country.
Guess what? Foster kids are like any other kids. What they need is what any other kid needs, they just need more of some things if they are older because they have been raised by people who didn't want them or weren't fit to have them. What makes homosexuals any less fit to provide that? What makes homosexuals abnormal? Answer: only your bigotry.
Want some supporrting evidence? Straight people have kids that grow up to be gay. I'm not talking about abused children here either. But, basically your whole thought process is predicated upon the idea that there is something wrong with homosexuals, which is an inherently prejudiced concept. YOU ARE A BIGOT. YOU HAVE NO HIGH GROUND.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
As I'm sure you know, generally the argument revolves around the basis of consent .. the argument in our society is that underage children aren't able to consent to sex in an informed manner, and that animals aren't able to consent to sex with humans at all.
Obviously homosexuality doesn't figure into that at all, because all people involved are obviously just as capable of consenting as heterosexual partners.
While I am not Christian myself, I think I find the statement: In my mind, just being a christian is endorsement of this guy: wholly offensive. Just because there are a bunch of rotten apples in the position of power/leadership in the Christian community does not mean the entire community (or the faith) is bad.
For your convenience, I am Jewish.
Other then that, a good lynchin of bastards who want to take away the rights of others because they are different (and pose no real threat to anyone else) wouldn't be such a bad thing.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I can't believe MS is really afraid of a religious-right boycott, especially when they're still the darlings of the other side of the Republican party (the economic right).
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
This pastor is a disgrace. The people who are opposed to gay marriage are actually very disturbed people who are in denial. They can't accept that two people of the same gender can experience love and commemorate that love in marriage. Here is is folks, the plain truth:
The love that two men or two women feel for each other is no different than the love that a heterosexual couple experiences. There is no difference at all. None. That same warm indescribably wonderful feeling that a hetero remembers (I'm straight, so I know what it feels like) feeling on their wedding day is no different from what a gay man or a lesbian woman would feel on their wedding day. But our sick society is trying to deny that love can be experienced outside of a heterosexual relationship. It makes them so uncomfortable that they cover their ears and scream loudly, "I'm not listening! I'm not listening! I'm not listening"!
I really hate sharing this country with such superstitious and frightened people.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
The best response to this from a Christian standpoint would be to show grace and love to homosexuals, and ignore the rest of the crowds that want an excuse to attack Christianity because of their intolerance.
But you have demonstrated your own variety of intolerance, which I wish you could see, because there are so many more like you out there who cannot see themselves objectively.
Christians should not discriminate against homosexuals, but non-Christians should not pick apart their neighbors belief structures. Just because I think some activity is wrong doesn't mean I can't be around someone who engages in that activity. Hell, I'll be the first to admit I've also engaged in immoral sexual conduct. Did God damn me to hell? He could have, but He chose not to. The same offer is extended to everyone.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Someone very big must have threatened them, or, more likely, we simply don't know the story here. I think a boycott would have been GREAT for MS. Firt of all: we all know that conservative christians are the least likely to be MS customers -- second of all: MS would get to look like a good guy for once by doing the right thing -- and thats great publicity.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
You know, most children don't actually see their parents reproduce. They see everything but the important bits, namely the act of putting the baby in, and taking the baby out. Thus, the ability to reproduce is arguably not a very important part of child-rearing. Also, many children are only children. I have two half brothers but they were both well into their childhoods when I was born, and they weren't around at until I was three or four. Thus my parents' ability to reproduce had no impact on my existence after the fact that I had been born, unless you count that my mom became [more] unbalanced emotionally after my birth. If THAT is what kids who are raised by gay parents are missing, it would be a huge boon.
So if you think that, why bother crafting such a goofy argument above? Guess what? A gay couple not being able to reproduce IS normal! What more do you want? Also, there are heterosexual couples that cannot have children for one or more of a variety of reasons. Should they not have children because they are abnormal? The whole argument is just stupid.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They all agree with him, whether they know it or not.
You gotta really stop with the "they all" comments. Not every Christian person has a problem with gays. There might be a legitimate poll out there that gives rough numbers - but I would bet that you couldn't legitmately say "most". It tends to be that the bigots who don't want gays to get equal rights are the loudest voices - while most of us are like "Hey I hope the best for gays...now let me go back to watching Enterprise." Don't let a bunch of loud mouths make you think all of Christiandom is a bad thing.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Unfortunately the reasonable middle isn't the ones out picketing the funerals of gay people. (Fred Phelps) They're not the one's on TV saying that a gay couple adopting a kid is "violence against the child." (The late Pope) They're not the ones that are saying gay people should be put in jail. (2004 Texas GOP platform)
The reasonable middle is fairly silent on these issues, and so it is the whackjob-fringe groups that get all the press and the air time.
If you're talking marriage, then that's a different animal.
Please be consistent from one senetence of your post to the next.
Federal law assignes some 1,080 benefits to married couples. Gays and Lesbians are excluded from those benefits. That is clearly not treating the same! They don't want special laws or consideration; they want to be treated just like everybody else.
Microsoft continues to be a huge supporter of gay rights. Withdrawing support from one piece of legislation (there's no reason they should have been involved in it in the first place and they are not opposing it, they are just withdrawing from the battle) does not suddenly make them "supporters of religious conservativism". They are a business. If an activity they indulge in, which is unrelated to their business, has the potential to cause them to lose a large amount of their business, it's the responsible thing to do to not let that happen.
I didn't see Apple or IBM or Google or any of the other companies Slashdotters love, offer any support to any gay rights legislation. Microsoft is the only one that did, and now, sadly, they are being forced to withdraw from the battle.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Yep, that's right. Gays want to join that special club of people who don't have to worry about being attacked on the street or in their own homes. They want to have those special rights like hospital visits and the ability to make medical decisions should their long-term partner become incapacitated. Let's not forget about the special right to keep a job without fear of harassment or being laid off for "poor performance," or any of the other hundreds of "special" rights the rest of the country takes for granted.
When a cat can understand the concept of marriage, its rights and responsabilities, and becomes a valid citizen of the country it lives in, then it should be granted marriage rights. Until then, a cat is a cat, and people are people.
Double check your history. Gay relationships are out of fashion only in the current time. Historically in many cultures they have been accepted and even praised.
That's not really true. Human beings are patterned to pursue things that cause them pleasure the same as Pavlov's dogs.
My experience, many moons ago, was that I knew that I was attracted to women long before I had experienced sexual ecstacy with a woman. Which contradicts your assertion that it is all learned.
I presume that gays and lesbians, for the most part, have had pretty similar experiences.
I say treat them the same - -that means NO special laws or consideration. Just like everybody else.
Absolutely!
Which is why they should be able to get married, and to live and work without fear of discrimination.
As for the marriage issue, I think a lot of people don't understand that marriage is far more than just an indication to society of two people being long term partners. There's a whole shedload of legal implications, such as ability to follow your partner to different places with a career change, or implications for what can be left in the event of your partner's death (especially from a taxation point of view), even implications for access to your partner under certain medical care situations. IANAL, so I can't fill you in on the details.. I'm also referring more to the situation in the UK, but I'm sure it's much the same in the US.
Anybody with more legal knowledge care to comment?
Explain to me why 3 men and a cat can't get married but 2 men can?
Hint: Cats aren't human. Humans are.
Furthermore a cat is incapable of consenting to such a union.
If marriage has got anything to do with ability to reproduce then anybody incapable of reproduction shouldn't be able to marry.
On the other hand, if it doesn't have anything to do with reproduction, then why are you so worried about letting same sex couples marry?
If you feel it would devalue "normal" marriages, then you need to take a close look at mariage statistics. They really can't get much more devalued than they already are.
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
If you look at the DSM-III, before the 4th edition, you will see homosexuality listed as a disease.
Historically, psychology and medicine in general, has a piss poor record for determining what is and isn't a disease. This is the same discipline that pushed frontal lobotomies as a valid "treatment" right up until the 60's.
Why is it states are passing referendums, public referendums, where homosexual marrige is outlawed by votes over 80%?
Because the U.S. is full of prejudiced, racist, intolerant, uneducated, fuckheads.
The republican party found one single issue they can bank on. As long as the republicans supply a candidate who is for defending marrige as defined between a man and a woman, they will keep winning elections. It is the ONLY reason bush won the last election.
You're probably right. But just because most people are unethical and want to tell other people what is and is not morally right and wrong (as if they were some sort of authority) a few of us like to vote our consciences, even if we are a minority. You see a hundred years ago the majority of people thought black people were an inferior race. Two hundred years ago the majority of people thought women were inferior to men, weaker and less intelligent and should not be allowed to own property of their own. Four hundred years ago anyone who said the earth revolved around the sun was declared an evil heretic who had to be burned to protect society.
The majority is not always right. The Bill of rights exists to protect the people from the government and the minorities from the majorities. Ben Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what to have for dinner." It is the reason for the limits on the government's power.
You see just because you are a prejudiced mental reject does not mean that if some day prejudiced mental rejects are in the minority open-minded people should be able to discriminate against them in the workplace if their religion does not get in the way of their job.
They're only "activist" if they don't decide in your favor, at least as far as Rightists in the U.S. are concerned.
That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere
American democracy has a long tradition of protecting the minority from the majority. I guess that no longer sits well with you? When can I expect the death camps to begin?
Activist Judges? Please explain to me what an activist judge is. As far as my study of law is concerned, judges evaluate laws and determine their legitimacy as a balance against over-reaching legislatures. Are you claiming that these judges are ignoring precedent or US legal theory like the SCOTUS did in Bush vs. Gore?
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
The point is that Microsoft's market share is
Surely not - shouldn't the real point be why does a human rights bill need the financial backing of a big company to get passed?
That's the issue as far as I'm concerned. Has the US ideals of democracy sunk so low that this is just a given now and not worthy of comment?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
But you see, the very act of gay sex is considered harmful to both parties. That's why your argument is flawed.
Yes! I've got it now... You are oh so right.
Things that are harmful should be illegal... I don't know why I didn't see it that way before.
Lets outlaw fatty foods, and smoking, and drinking too, those are all harmful to the parties partaking of them.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Then you need to look closer, or take off your blinders, or something.
Assault someone because they're wearing yellow or very nearly any other stupid reason in the world, and it's assault. Assault that SAME person with a slightly different, similarly stupid motivation (skin tone, religous jewelry, presumed or acknowledged sexual orientation) and suddenly it's a "hate crime" with far more severe consequences.
If the law isn't taking assault seriously enough, then we should change that - not cook up extra "thought crime" statutes to tack on. And the use of the phrase "thought crime" here is completely apt - we're talking about a law that criminalises the thought behind the crime, rather than the act itself. This is a very very very bad precedent, regardless of any other aspects of it - thought crimes are a category of laws that should never be made, for any purpose whatsoever, period.
I agree wholeheartedly with all genuine efforts toward legal equality. The State shouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with defining, recognising, rewarding or penalising marriage. Propose eliminating those privileges and I'll back you. Propose expanding those privileges to cover new classes instead, and I'll fight you every step of the way.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Mmm-hmmmm. So you want to tell 80% of the people to go fuck themselves?
If they're wrong I'll gladly tell 99% of the population. Numbers don't make you any more right. Especially when that large percentage is trying to tell me what to do regarding my personal life or doing anything that is not their concern. I'm not gay, but I should go fuck a guy just to piss you self-righteous wankers off. You don't know what is right and what is wrong and the christian bible tells you so (if you happen to be christian, just an educated guess). Look to your own actions and leave others to theirs.
It is not going to happen. It is going to make for more violence.
Hopefully whomever initiates the violence is prepared for the consequences. You see in some places being christian is enough to get you murdered. Some day that may be the case in the U.S. In the U.S. currently the law forbids discriminating against christians, don't worry once the Bill of rights is tossed out, nothing will protect you from being fired for your beliefs either, or even for just being the wrong sect of christian (whichever ones don't win). I hope you enjoy it.
Black is not a choice. Homosexuality is.
Homosexuality is as much of a choice as choosing to believe that the earth revolves around the sun.
It is no different than people who want to have sex with children, or people who want to have sex with animals.
Children and animals cannot consent in an informed way. It is a completely separate issue and in no way analogous.
I'm sorry you can't deal with your own homosexual feelings and believe in some superstitions that make you think you will be punished for it. Maybe you should turn of the nice man on the 700 club and actually think for your own self. Please don't reproduce.
you're already equal to the rest of us, just like women and blacks
Not knowing what you said, you said it.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Just yesterday I was reading on Slashdot about how evil corporations were, about how they should not be allowed involvement in government or political campaigns.
But today many of the same people (I'm sure) are bitching about Microsoft's decision to stay out of this gay rights legislative battle.
Lesson learned: Corporate power is OK as long as they're fighting on my side.
Hypocrites.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
It's insightful because he's pointing out that it's sad that it TAKES corporate backing to get a human rights bill passed. Microsoft is free to decide to act as they like, it's just sad that the bill like this could suffer just because there's less money being thrown in it's direction.
Yeah, I hate it when corporations get involved with social issues. I mean think about all those charity donations. A corporation should only care about cut throat business and profit and stop trying to help people. :\
Seriously though, there's a perfectly valid branch of business ethics that argues that businesses and corporations have an obligation to help the community. There's also a completely opposite view of course. Both have their arguments. I for one don't mind a business helping out the world.
Thank you! I'm glad that someone else is dismissing the term "activist judge" as a conservative rallying cry. As much as I support queer rights (as well as human rights in general), the first time I heard the term "activist judge", I understood the concern that federal judges may not have been deciding on an issue of law, rather, may have tried to decide on the right thing to do. I'm not saying that I agreed with the conservative sentiment, but I understand the concern and the potential appearance of the decision.
However, when the term was used again in the Terri Schaivo case by Bill Frist and Tom DeLay, it was so obviously bullshit that (IMO) it totally devalued their original use of the term...especially because (historically, at least) the legislative and executive branches of the government don't get to make a law for one person that only affects one person. (Sorry, the Terri Schaivo case a big trolling point and I hate to bring it up, but it's the only other time I've heard the term "activist judge" used -- I won't talk about it any further outside of this context.)
The thing that I really take away from it is that no matter what side of an issue you sit on, it just doesn't seem right to break the system to get your way, because ultimately, someone else will justify breaking the system to get their way and you may not like it. Was the system broken by anyone in the LGBT case? I honestly don't know, but at the time, the concern was valid, and deserved some consideration. Interestingly enough, (and depending on your point of view) my comment about breaking the system could be applied to both sides of either case where the term "activist judge" was thrown around. I guess it just comes down to a golden rule: "Don't be a dick." I guess we have quite a few politicians who could care less about that.
-Turkey
Oh let's see. The right to inheritance, the right to visit and make descisions for your spouse in the hospital, the right to file your taxes as a married couple, certain states have married only property rights with regards to real estate. Gay and lesbian people who want to get married know the list of rights and privledges much better than I do (a straight divorced guy), but I'm sure there's many more.
You've *got* to be kidding. Christians are one of the least-discriminated-against groups in this country. At the moment, the most-bashed group is the liberals. Fundamentalist Christians also get slammed, but *not* Christians, as a general rule.
With the fundamentalists, it isn't so much their religion that gets slammed, but the willful ignorance that goes along with it. "Intelligent design" is *not* science, no matter how many times you say them in the same sentence. Getting upset at gay couples for wanting the same recognition as non-gay couples is not socially fair, no matter how much anal sex or cunnilingus upsets your delicate sensibilities. And unfortunately, fundamentalists are one of the groups to do the most discriminating.
That's the difference. There are many Christians I hold in great esteem, and would not dare (or even want) to impugn their beliefs. I don't even believe fundamentalists are real Christians; I believe they are a cult.
But that's perhaps a kneejerk reaction to those fundamentalists who believe Mormonism, Catholicism, and Unitarianism are "just" cults.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I can't agree with you more. I believe that marriage is an institution of religion, and that the term marriage should be applied to couples who are wed by an accepted religion (no scientology or cults, please). The government should take whatever benefits they have historically given married couples and make up a new type of union with exactly those benefits, and allow them universally to all couples of either gender.
As a rational member of society, I believe that I do not have the right to dictate to you what is love. I don't have the right to infringe on you whatever I may believe. As a Catholic, though, I believe that homosexual relationships are wrong (when sex is involved). No one can shake my belief on this, because part of faith is the idea that there are some things whose correctness is established by God, and not subject to my review or approval. When my conscience interferes with my faith (as it does here), I believe that my conscience is malformed.
America allows me the right to passionately believe what I do, but it only works when the rights of all of its citizens are defended. When the government calls it marriage, I feel compelled to try and intervene somehow because I believe that the weakening of the instition of marriage is the cause of many of today's problems, and in my eyes this weakens it further by taking the word and dilluting it even further from what it was meant to be. If it was just called something else, I'd support it fully.
I can't describe in words why such a trivial thing like renaming the civil act means so much to me. Perhaps its because true faith in modern society is so dilluted already - sure there's a conservative political movement, but there are few things less Christian than a mass of people who declare a person who declare one form of sinner is less human than another form of sinner, who endlessly warmonger to solve some feeling of vengeance that seems to endlessly beat in their chest, and try to evangelize publically while ignoring the teachings of their own faith in their own homes. Regardless of motive, the worlds of religion and politics were never meant to be such close bedfellows and any time you try to secularize a thing such as marriage which has existed for thousands of years in various incarnations, but all of them religious, you're going to end up in trouble. Encourage people to set up families with tax benefits and everything else, but secularize it AWAY from marriage and stop trying to poach a sacrament that millions consider holy that predates my own religion - that solves a number of conflicts various religions have with the implementation of secular marriage and is the only solution that truly seperates church from state.
If the law isn't taking assault seriously enough, then we should change that - not cook up extra "thought crime" statutes to tack on. And the use of the phrase "thought crime" here is completely apt - we're talking about a law that criminalises the thought behind the crime, rather than the act itself. This is a very very very bad precedent,
Courts routinely take into account the reasoning and motivations of the accused in determining what sort of charge to levy and the severity of the penalty. What is the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder if not the difference of the killer's mental state? Hate crimes are a natural extension of the well established precedent that some actions can be made worse when combined with a dispicable motive.
Well, technically under the law gay people have all the rights of straight people. A gay man has the right to marry a woman and two straight men may not marry. I'm not saying it's right, but equality does exist. What you're talking about is extending the rights of everyone, which is something I have no problem with.
And while were on the subject, why is polygamy a felony in many states? I may not agree with it, but I see it as an equal cause to gay marriage (not to mention the fact that there are religious freedom implications with polygamy).
More specifically, those were state CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS not just state laws. The whole reason for that is because they're afraid that activist judges would overturn laws already in the books. Currently 39 states have "Defense of Marriage Acts" as laws, as well as the federal DOMA.
Even more specifically, they're afraid that knowledgable and competent judges will rightly find their bigoted and pointless laws in violation of constitutional protections, and over-turn them. So they have to circumvent the fact that the courts aren't packed with reactionary bigots by encoding their own bigotry and ignorance right into the constitution itself.
It wasn't activist judges that made gay marriage legal in Massachusettes. A valid court case was brought before the judges and the judges rightly ruled that there was no constitutional reason to not grant the civil licence, and turned the issue back to the legislature to rectify. Which they did. And gee, the sky didn't fall.
Equal Protection under the law: it's for everybody.
Religious right-wing bigots hate that, though, which is why they're going through and trying to circumvent rational judicial rulings by encoding their hateful bigotry into the very constitutions themselves.
There's a reason the founding fathers put the Bill of Rights in there and stated over and over again that the Constitution and its amendments were there to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority". Civil Rights should never be put up to a popular vote. An individuals basic and fundamental rights should never be subjected to mob rule.
It should be noted that when interracial marriage was legalized, over 90% of the population was against interracial marriage. It should also be noted that virtually all of the histrionic gnashing of teeth about the disaster that "changing marriage" would unleash upon the country that we're seeing over the gay marriage issue is almost identical to the same crap that was spewed by foes of interracial marriage several decades ago.
And yes, marriage is a civil right. Among the more than 1000 rights granted by a civil marriage license are such things as freedom from being compelled by the state to testify against your spouse, and the freedom from having the government break up your family and deport a spouse because they're not a citizen. These are rights that are not available in any other way, through any other legal document that can ever be drawn up.
The simple fact is that these laws are not only pointlessly punitive encoding of ignorant bigotry into law, but they're violations of religious freedom. My religion, and the religions of a great many people, does not prohibit same-sex unions or marriages. The only real justifications ever cited against same-sex marriages are religious in nature. Why should the dogma of one religion be encoded into law (or the constitution) and not another? The state, as yet, has cited absolutely no compelling reason for denying gay couples a civil marriage license.
As long as two athiests who cannot have children (like my friends Mark and Jennifer) can go down to the justice of the peace and get a marriage license with nothing more than the required fee and two witnesses, then I can see no rational, reasonable, or ethical justification for denying the same exact right to a gay couple.
But that's just my two cents.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Flash back: 50 years in the south:
"Why should only same-race couples be able to marry the ones they love?"
Because, by definition, that's what marriage IS.
Flash back: 150 years in the south:
"Why should only white couples be allowed to marry the ones they love?"
Because, by definition, that's what marriage IS.
Flash back: 250 years in America:
"Why should women become chattel, and men their effective owner?"
Because, by definition, that's what marriage IS.
"It felt almost as good as stealing cars from grandma." -- Margaret Thatcher, probably.
An individual's civil rights are not subject to your approval. If we waited for the masses to vote for things like equal rights for african-americans, they'd still be in chains. Civil rights for minorities are rarely won by popular vote, and "mob rule" would be a horrible way to determine who gets what rights anyway.
Federal courts haven't been arbitrarily reading their own values into the constitution. The constitution has a pretty clear "equal protection" clause, and is pretty clear about separating church and state (if not explicitly in the constitution, then in the subsequent writings of the authors thereof, Thomas Jefferson in particular was very clear about the concept).
If a state super-majority were to decide to strip people of color of their right to vote, the Judiciary would have ever right to step in and say "no, that's wrong", and they'd be absolutely right to do so. That's not being an "activist judge" (the latest code-word for a judge who decides something based on reason and logic rather than on the speaker's prejudices and wishes). That's a judge doing their job. Just because a judge comes to a decision you don't personally like or feel comfortable with, doesn't mean they're being "activist" or in fact that they are wrong.
The judges coming down on the side of treating gays and gay couples equally under the law are making the correct decisions. You don't have to like it, and that is your choice and your right. But that doesn't mean that the judges are wrong.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Because there's opposition to it that has the financial backing of big companies. Money is required to accomplish anything (good or bad) in U.S. politics.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
How exactly is granting groups the same rights as others "submitting to them"? The original story is about a law that just prevents discrimination in things like hiring on the basis of sexual preference. No matter how I twist it, I can't come up with a reasonable viewpoint where that is a minority dominating the majority.
Now on a broader view there have been a number of arguments that movement like the ones to have homosexual civil unions or marriages are infringing on the beliefs of others who want to keep marriage "sacred". I have a hard time understanding this as in no case I am aware of are heterosexual unions being discouraged or altered in any way, they are just loosing their status as "the only".
On the other hand, the (inheritors of the) Christian Coalition is definitely trying to push their views that only heterosexual relationships are OK, and they are trying to do so through the law. Now I don't feel I have any legal right to challenge what is taught in churches, the same way that I don't feel that there is any legal right out there for people to challenge what goes on in people's bedrooms (murder, abuse, etc... not included).
On the specific subject of marrige, I have yet to hear a reasoned argument about why a homosexual couple should not be allowed to marry that does not base itself on one of three grounds:
[list]
[*]religious grounds (God said so... and it says so in only this one sentence of this translation of the Bible).
[*]tradition (this is more often than not really the first one in disguise)
[*]it would encourage the "homosexual lifestyle": promiscuity, sexual orgies, drugs, and usually vague other bad things (clearly unmarried heterosexuals don't do that... and wouldn't marriage/commitment tend to settle people down, even assuming that this was a valid stereotype in the fist place?... oh, and another disguise for the first one)
[/list]
I have never seen a homosexual activist try and force someone into becoming a homosexual, but the reverse is commonly not true.... So... whom is trampling on who's rights?
Is that a decent answer?
PS... you have no legal rights to try and force the general culture to change, or not to change. The whole idea of the bill of rights was to keep this majority culture from crushing other opinions. A group is currently trying to use the law system to keep the culture from changing. We saw this same exact scenario when black and white people started marrying... with the exact same arguments and process (first it went bad, then it slowly got better).
Nice regurgitation of right-wing talking points there.
That a justice might use foreign laws as one aspect in the justification of their decision doesn't bother me in the least, and I'm not sure why it bothers you. OBviously they came to the result of their decision based on the constitution and thoughtful deliberation. In the explaination of the decisions, I think it's perfectly fine to cite any source they want to in an attempt to make it clear why they decided the way they did.
And as for ruling against the will of the people, THAT IS THE JOB OF JUSTICES. Otherwise it'd just be put up to popular vote.
I point out that many of the best decisions have been against majority opinion, in many cases against super-majority opinion. Decisions like the abolishment of segregation or the legalization of interracial marriage. Nobody today really looks back on those as bad decisions (unless they're an unrepetant racist), but at the time, they were wildly unpopular. More than 90% of the people were against the legalization of interracial marriage.
That number is somewhat less for gay marriage (70-something percent at last poll, I think) today, and the people opposing it today are just as wrong as the people opposing interracial marriage were back in the 50's. It's only a matter of time, but sooner or later, same sex marriage will be legal... just like it's becoming in Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and across Scandanavia.
And even in the case of the Vermont decision on gay marriage, the judges did NOT "legislate from the bench". A legitimate case was brought before them, and the judges found no constitutional backing for denying the same sex couples equal protection and rights under the law, so they TURNED IT BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE to rectify the issue as they saw fit. The Legislature there decided to rectify with civil unions. It was a very heated debate then, but now nobody cares. The sky didn't fall. It's similar in Massachucettes. All this strong opposition, but they decided to pass gay marriage, and it's done, and really, the sky didn't fall.
All this opposition is manufactured outrage and once it's all done, nobody will care, and twenty years down the pike everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about.
And as for changing the meaning of language, that's just B.S. The definition of marriage changes constantly, generation to generation. Besides, gay marriage doens't affect one single church or religious institution in any way. The fact is that "marriage", the word, applies to two completely separate things... the religious ceremony (untouched by allowing gay marriages), and a civil licence that grants rights and responsibilities to two partners in society.
I have two friends, Mark and Jennifer. They are both athiests. He had a vasectomy, and she is unable to bear children due to cervical cancer which cause the removal of her uterus. THey met and fell in love. They got married by walking down to the city hall with the correct fee, and two witnesses, and got their marriage license.
As long as it's perfectly legal for those two to get married, you'll have a very hard time justifing or rationalizing your reasons for wanting to deny the same right to Bill and Ted, or Jane and Marsha.
You don't have to like it. But your dislike of it is no justification for denying over a thousand very real rights to other people you don't even know.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Check out the Bill of Rights. Now check out the people involved in its creation. Not a poor man in the bunch, by the standards of the times.
Learn this in your bones before you try to make any changes in the world: GOVERNMENT IS BY THE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL, FOR THE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL. (That's descriptive, not prescriptive, by the way.)
It's kinda pointless trying to change a system that you don't understand; your actions my even be counter-productive. Once you've understood the purpose of the system, you can begin to see that it is rational and internally consistent. THEN you can begin to formulate your plans to change it.
Again and again, the "special rights" argument. It is empty, without substance, existing only to provide seemingly-reasonable talking points for the unthinking.
To borrow from a post I and another gay man made on another website earlier this year:
Let's take one example of the "protected class" status that you claim I have. Say you and I work for the same employer, one who provides some level of health insurance coverage to employees. Is it acceptable with you if I am, in effect, forced indirectly to subsidize the insurance plan of your spouse and children because you have a "normal" family, while I am denied the opportunity to add my partner/lover or the child of my partner to my policy? Remember, you're getting your extra piece of the pie; the money to pay your family premium has to come from somewhere. Should you divorce your wife and marry another woman with children, I would indirectly contribute to their coverage as well.
When you and I retire, your wife at the time (let's say wife #4 by now, a younger woman) would likely share your retirement benefits. If you precede her in death, the benefits to her will most likely continue. My non-sharable, non-transferable benefits, however, will cease entirely upon my death, even while your widow's checks may continue for several more decades -- just another piece of the pie that she deserves, obviously, for loving a person of the opposite sex. In some cases, more than one of your ex-wives could also draw certain benefits based upon your employment record and retirement plans.
And if, before your death, you needed government assistance for nursing home care, your wife would not lose her home. If I needed the same care, however, I would be forced to liquidate my assets, including the home I may have shared with a same-sex partner for 50 years. Even if the house is in both names, I could be forced to sell my portion, effectively throwing him out on the street unless he was able to buy the house again, this time at its appreciated value. (Although it would not happen in my own family, legal wrangling by a deceased partner's biological family sometimes bankrupts the surviving partner, regardless of the safeguards they had in place.)
The notion that to be gay means that gay marriage is automatically supported is reductionist...but unsurprising.
My partner and I don't care about "marriage." What we want is to not be treated as though our ten-year committment is somehow going to ruin society if it's recognized in any way.
We just want to not be treated differently. Whether you call it marriage is up to you. Activists insisting on same-gender "marriage" vs. calling it something else are missing the point. Acting as though any progress towards equality is insufficient if the label doesn't come along is not only childish, it's unrealistic and counterproductive. Society is not going to evolve because you throw a tantrum. You have only to look at the history of the civil rights movement to learn.
It's grimly amusing to reflect on the notion that the anti-gay-marriage crowd isn't worried about the ever-increasing divorce rate. But that is the classic tactic of the demagogue: conflate the issues, muddy the waters with emotionally loaded terminology, and go after the more vulnerable.
Personally, I'm tired of having to beg for crumbs from society's table and endure the abuse. Antigay prejudice (yes, PREJUDICE) is pretty much the last respectable prejudice in America (though there's still some room for anti-immigrant sentiment). And the "pro-gay-marriage" activists play right into the hands of the bigots.
Cracker Barrel got away with firing people for being gay for over a decade before they decided the adverse publicity had become too much. Several wrongful termination lawsuits got tossed out; the employees had no recourse other than to go get another job and hope that their potential new employers weren't bigoted.
- "Why did you leave your last job?"
- "Well, sir, I was fired for
A sig is a waste of bits.
These are not minority protections. They are legal privileges. Desirable things, understandably, but it is nothing like the right to speak, or vote, or have due process. You do not help your case by pretending that it is.
The right to not be compelled by the state to testify against your spouse, and the right to not have your spouse deported because they are not a citizen are very much liek the right to speak or vote or have due process. You do not help your case by pretending that they are not.
I put it to you that you disagree with me precisely because you are ignorant. Ignorant of the impact on gay people of these punative laws that deny them, their spouses, and their children the same rights and protections that you and others take for granted.
You talk about freedom as though it means being able to feel good about yourself.
Nowhere have I said anything that would lead any reasonable person to that conclusion. That is your invention and your attempt to inject motivations and words into me that you have prepared talking points to tear down.
I talk about freedom as it is, or at least should be: equal treatment under the law for all individuals. I think that I should have, just like you, some say in every single aspect of my governance, period. But I also think that just because you don't like who I love and share my life with, that you cannot and should not be able to deny me the same rights you enjoy, in the same way you enjoy them. Similarly, I should not be denied the same rights you enjoy becuase the color of my skin is different than yours.
And as to your last point, marriage is most definitely a civil liberty. It is a civil license that grants rights that can be obtained in no other way, such as the aforementioned rights of immigration and the right to not be compelled to testify against your spouse. Those are very obviously civil rights, limiting the government's ability to meddle in my personal relationship and partership without any valid reason for doing so. Unless and until you can provide a compelling reason for the state to be able to come in and break up my relationship, but to NOT be able to do the same to YOUR relationship, you have not proven your case.
And the burden, dear friend, is on you and those who would try and deny me equal rights and equal protection... not for me to prove I am somehow worth of being treated equally.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
If it is allowed against the will of the majority, it takes their freedom of self-detemination
Perhaps you should look up the word "self-determination". It has nothing to do with whether or not some other person has the right to get legally married.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
As a gay man, I wholehearted support your right to believe anything you wish. What I don't understand is why you think you have the right to "share" with me what you think of my "lifestyle," unless I've specifically asked you to do so. I wouldn't dream of telling any religious person, whatever their religion or denomination, what I think of their religion. Why should you be held to a different standard?
Here are three reasons...
1. What the hell does marriage have to do with evolution?! Do you honestly believe that the only way people can breed is if they get married? Answer me this, Bill and Bob get married, how, in your mind, does this magically enable them to pass thier genes on - does one of them suddenly grow a uterous?!
2. Explain homosexuality in any of the other species that exhibit it. You know your argument that evolution says that homosexuality cannot exist in nature? Well, I just contradticted it.
3. Who the hell are you to tell somebody else, who you have never met, who will probably never meet you, who will have zero impact on you, who they may or may not become legally bound to with all the rights and privileges associated with that.
Look, sexuality is not a genetic thing, it's not a learned thing, it's just a specific setting on a scale for each individual.
Some of us are heavily pegged towards the hetero end, some of us towards the homo end, most of us are on the hetero side of the center, a few more on the homo side of the center and a handful of us are smack bang in the middle.
It's not something to be changed, it's just diversity in action.
I don't think anybody can seriously say that that are 100% hetero or 100% homo, our species is not built that way - we need human contact and at the end of the day it doesn't matter which gender.
As for the marriage debate - GET RID OF THE RELIGION and everything becomes simple, gay people and straight people deserve to have the same legal rights, privileges and processes available to them, marriage included.
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
Now tell me how frivilious lawsuits agaisnt wrongfull termination are not out of control?
They are not out of control because you told a rambling and pointless anecdote.
I rather doubt that anyone could get $1.3M from a Fortune 500 legal department simply for being hispanic. Either there was substantial evidence of discrimination, or (more likely) this chick had some very good dirt on someone up high.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
You know.. it's clear to me that America truly isn't a place of freedom anymore. It's more free than other places but this country is looking more oligarchy everyday. Wonder how long it can last until some fresh blood needs to be spilled.
I'm Christian, i'm male, i'm straight, i'm black, i'm American. I don't give a shit if two males or two females want to marry. Not my business and if god has a problem with it. Let god do the judging, i'm too busy trying to survive.
What really gets me is that regardless of religion. If you can't follow the simple commandments and rationalize them on the basis of your own ideology. How fucking faithful and true to your religion are you? "Love thy neighbhor? Yeah.. only if they aren't gay."
You fucking hypocrites, the same book you live by talks about people like you. The same book talks about praising false idols (ie: the pope). I mean, even before the new ones burial plot could sink people are already over their mourning and cheering a new pope and for what?! Religious leadership? You need a leader to talk to your god, to steer you to holiness?
You "religious" people disgust me. Stop walking around in the dark or you'll be left in the dark. How about you all take a minute and re-read the bible? Any bible, any religion. You don't have to get far to see the message.
Treat people the way you want to be treated, love thy neighbor.. You don't need a church, wherever two or more gather. I'll be there.
I mean jesus christ.. seriously.. JESUS CHRIST.. help these people.
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Co 6:9-10)
Well, that's what one particular translation into English says. The King James edition says:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God
The English Standard Version translation says:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
That word that the KJ edition translates as effeminate, and that your ediition gives as homosexuals, and that the ESV gives as "men who practice homosexuality" is the greek word malakos, which refers to boys who served as live-in prostitutes for wealthy men (who usually had wives). Basically, boys kept purely for sexual purposes. The word your edition has translated as sodomite actually meant a male temple prostitute.
In other words, saying that 1 Cor 9 condemns homosexuality is about as ridiculous as saying that it condemns hererosexuality because it condemns adultry. All it actually condems is homosexuality in the context of certain kinds of prostitution.
Question: if you actually believe the Bible, why don't you think it is important enough to actually read in the original language? It always puzzles me that people can believe that this book records the actual will of God, but not care enough to want to discover what it says.
Which country do you live in? It can't be the US, because most of it's founders were Deists, not Christians. Religious morals should not be laws, sins should not be crimes. Obviously actions harmful to another, like murder, rape, theft, etc should be illegal. But there are many laws in this country that are purely Christian in origin. The anti sodomy laws, for instance. Why should it be illegal in 48 states for one consenting adult to perform oral sex on another?
I agree that the government has no business regulating marriage. They should neither ban marriage, nor enforce it. Churches should not be prevented from marrying two or more gay people, not should they force churches to marry two (or more) gay people.
The government shouldn't even be preventing bigamy. This doesn't mean I condone the practice of coercing women to marry the way some hard-line Mormons do. But marriage, and sexuality, are personal choices and what two (or more) freely consenting adults do is not the governments business.
I think I like your idea of getting the government out of the marriage business entirely. But I think you are very wrong about the separation of church and state being only one way. That leaves too much room for one religion to force it's beliefs on others. It allows an attitude of "You can whatever god you want but you have to follow my god's rules", and that's not true freedom of religion.
Don't tell me I'm a victim if a girl gives me a BJ, because I certainly don't think I'm a victim (I think I'm damn lucky). Without a victim there should be no crime.
TommyOpen Source for Open Minds
Wow, so that's it - you guys simply don't get it.
It ISN'T about hating Christians, it is disapproving of actions of those that would inflict THEIR world view - "How things should be" on others. I am absolutely cool with anyone of any religion even though I disagree with the very concept of organized religion. This is simply because MY view is just another view and just as valid.
Any public policy should be unbiased in all ways including religion or you affect the freedoms of those that believe otherwise. Good policy is devoid of any influence except those of the public. Some of the public is gay and wants to marry another gay person, some are Christians and feel homosexualality is a sin - and most of the public just simply doesn't care as long as you don't mess with them.
Christians like to do things that are ONLY rational if you believe in their religion.
If I told you that religion is bullshit. The bible is just mothergoose written by unsophisticated cultists long, long ago and that we have much more plausible answers now so now it is illegal to do unnatural things like believing in a "Holy Ghost" or empty morality and I am going to ammend the constitution to reflect the removal of your right to practice Christanity - you would hate non-Christians wouldn't you?
Oh wait...
ymmv