Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by firejuggler

Gay marriage is adopted by France. 331 vote for, 225 against. UMP has put a recourse against the law at the Conseil Constitutionnel, wich will check if the point pointed by the recourse in conformity with the french constitution. The Conseil Constitutionnel has one month to reach a decision.

I read it here first!

Thanks for this great news. It was expected by most despite the vigorous demonstrations by opponents. Still, it's huge cause for celebration that such an influential European country is opening marriage to all couples. I'm guessing that the check of the constitutionality is unlikely to come to grief.

[kladner]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...ef=mostpopular

Bryan Fischer doesn't usually find himself tongue-tied. The virulently anti-gay spokesperson for the American Family Association (AFA) has made a career out of his penchant for outrageous and often anti-gay statements. A sampling of Fischer sound bites from the past few weeks includes wild claims like homosexuality being responsible for the collapse of Western economies, as well as blander accusations like homosexuality being objectively immoral behavior.
Fischer's condemnation of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community often hinges on his stated belief that being gay is a (bad) choice. But on Wednesday, Fischer got into a verbal sparring match with Fox News radio host Alan Colmes over whether or not Fischer himself ever had to ignore or suppress "gay urges."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...ef=mostpopular

The "man-on-street" interview is rarely an insightful exercise in news gathering, but sometimes it can be a revealing window into American culture -- like in the video above, where residents of a small Colorado town are asked, "When did you choose to be straight?"

[chappy]

http://altoonaherald.desmoinesregist...-marriage-view

Accordingly, we must guard against attempting to use ancient texts to regulate modern ethics and morals, especially those ancient texts whose endorsements of other social institutions, such as slavery, would be universally condemned today, even by the most adherent of Christians.

[firejuggler]

French same sex marriage update :
The conseil constitutionnel approved the bill on the 17 may, got it signed the same day by the President. (strong symbol here : 17 may is the international day against homophoby).
Marriage is allowed 10 days after the publication of ' bans' ( public declaration of marriage, allowing people with good reason -for exemple one party is not divorced, or the two person involved are close familly- to oppose the marriage). The first same-sex marriage has been procceeded (probably not the right legal word) the 29 May.
That is, for the civil wedding In France, A religious wedding can only be done after a civil one -not that the church allow same sex marriage anyway-.

[Xyzzy]

Vaguely related to the topic:

http://news.yahoo.com/transgender-na...005114970.html

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Vaguely related to the topic:

http://news.yahoo.com/transgender-na...005114970.html

Thanks for the link.

I think transgenderism is indeed related to the topic. The article does not mention anything about the former Navy SEAL's marital status, but if she had been married to a woman while she was still a man, and if the couple were living somewhere where marriage is for man-woman couples only (still most of the world but falling sharply!), she would in most cases have had to divorce her wife before undergoing her gender reassignment. Opening marriage to all couples is an issue for all L, G, B and T people, despite the prominant featuring of gay men in most of the debates which are now taking place in all continents of the world.

[Xyzzy]

Vaguely related tot the topic:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cheeri...151048704.html

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Vaguely related tot the topic:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cheeri...151048704.html

This article has really taken me aback. I guess I knew already that there is still - more than 50 years after the discussion - a great deal of racist resistance to mixed race families. I was slightly less aware that so many people with such archaic ideas are so sure of their righteousness that they will openly express them on the internet (though I suppose a little reflection would have told me that that was bound to be so: the internet offers complete anonymity as a platform for spouting the dark recesses of one's soul, after all). But I simply did not realise that American companies pander so much to public bigotry that it is extremely rare for mixed race families to be portrayed at all! I am genuinely shocked about that.

Yes, this is indeed related to the topic. Does it mean that in 50 years time from now, when families with same sex married parents will be ubiquitous and completely part of their societies all over the world, that companies will still be featuring only mum-dad families for fear of ruffling people's bigoted feathers??

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

This article has really taken me aback. I guess I knew already that there is still - more than 50 years after the discussion - a great deal of racist resistance to mixed race families. I was slightly less aware that so many people with such archaic ideas are so sure of their righteousness that they will openly express them on the internet (though I suppose a little reflection would have told me that that was bound to be so: the internet offers complete anonymity as a platform for spouting the dark recesses of one's soul, after all).

Then factor in that The US still has its first & only mixed-race president ...

It was only four years ago that the previous record for death threats to a new US president was shattered.

Originally Posted by http://rollingout.com/politics/obama-gets-more-death-threats-than-any-u-s-president-is-the-secret-service-enough/

According to Ronald Kessler’s account of presidential security, In the President’s Secret Service, since his election in 2008, the president has endured a death threat increase of approximately 400 percent compared to his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Now, that article came out in late 2009.

Compare this one from less than 7 months ago, shortly after Obama's re-election:
" President Barack Obama Is the Most Threatened President in History"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...ent-In-History
(next-day commentary at http://jezebel.com/5963372/massive-n...secret-service)

By one estimate (the Secret Service doesn't release numbers), 43,830 death threats for his first four years alone.

- -

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Does it mean that in 50 years time from now, when families with same sex married parents will be ubiquitous and completely part of their societies all over the world, that companies will still be featuring only mum-dad families for fear of ruffling people's bigoted feathers??

May depend on whether the US has its first same-sex First Couple at that time.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

May depend on whether the US has its first same-sex First Couple at that time.

Very interesting point. And thanks for the links about the threats to Barack Obama and his family.

I suppose it shows that there are multiple stages of acceptance of groups, which were previously seen as "different" and undesirable, into society. And in the case of people of different races, while the integration is generally accepted for the status quo that it now is, people still balk at the idea that a black person can be president of the United States. There's a long period, still going on, of "acceptance but only to a certain point and no further". So people of other races are tolerated by the white majority provided that they know, and stay in, their "place" in society. (I am of course only referring to the very worst attitudes of this white majority: most white people will, I hope, not suffer from this racism anymore.)

So, yes, the first same-sex First Couple will later in the course of history become an important step in overcoming this "knowing one's place" barrier when it comes to acceptance of same sex couples.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

And in the case of people of different races, while the integration is generally accepted for the status quo that it now is,

_some_

people still balk at the idea that a black person can be president of the United States.

Obama did, after all, win a majority of the popular vote in two consecutive elections -- the first Democratic president to do since Franklin Roosevelt. - -

So people of other races are tolerated by the white majority provided that they know, and stay in, their "place" in society. (I am of course only referring to the very worst attitudes of this white majority: most white people will, I hope, not suffer from this racism anymore.)

May I suggest a better way of dealing with that awkwardness: don't use "the white majority" when what you are referring to are only people who have racist attitudes. (I feel qualified to offer that suggestion because I am a member of that "white majority". :-)