Posted by
Playful Walrus on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 5:56:22 PM
There was a lot of coverage over the last several days of the homosexuality and gender confusion advocacy events in the USA's capitol, and President Obama's action - or lack thereof. The themes seem to focus on marriage law and military service. Even the Los Angeles Times editorial board recognizes the importance of prioritizing, even as they say that Obama "owes gays more support".
As anxious as we are to see gay rights recognized throughout this country, it also is important for the administration to set priorities and make progress in a politically strategic way.
Still, they call on him to offer a timeline.
Then they go on to bemoan confusion of marriage laws from state to state, citing the Texas divorce case. Whose fault is that? Most states affirm bride+groom marriage. If we're going to make everything the same, let's go with the majority.
Then they go on to dismiss the concerns of the "Yes on 1" campaign in Maine, before going on to a general plea for Obama to do the bidding of homosexuality advocates.
Here is the paper's Katherine Skiba previewing Obama’s speech to the (LGBT) Human Rights Campaign at a fundraiser.
And here is her article reporting on the speech afterwards.
He acknowledged in his remarks that some gays have been dissatisfied with the pace of his reforms.
There will always be a contingent that is "dissatisfied", no matter what. It is how they make their living.
In an address that was at times poignant and reflected on the sometimes "painful and heartbreaking" experiences gays face, Obama said he recognized that a gay relationship was "just as admirable as a relationship between a man and a woman."
This is his opinion, but he doesn't back it with anything. It is a mere assertion. However, it is demonstrable that both-sexes relationships contribute to society in ways that no same-sex pairing can.
The uneven track record to date has Cleve Jones, 54, a former aide to late gay rights leader Harvey Milk, fed up with what he termed "incrementalism" and tired of politicians telling activists to prioritize their demands.
Well, yes, how dare legislators focus on war, terrorists getting nuclear weapons, and major investment fraud when they could be focusing on whether or not the laws make someone get all tingly inside?
On Thursday the House passed a bill that would broaden the federal hate-crime law to cover violence against gays.
Really? Just "gays"? Or anyone of any sexual orientation targeted due to their perceived sexual orientation? And if so, will it protect a husband with a polygamist orientation from assault by his lawful wife? if she throws something at him, will that be a hate crime?
Obama noted Saturday that the bill was named after Matthew Shepard, the gay college student whose killing in Wyoming in 1998 galvanized the gay rights movement.
I condemn murder for any reason, but notice this was back in 1998. So has there been no other murder of a homosexual person in our union motivated by their sexual orientation in 11 years (I mean by someone other than another homosexual, committing what has been referred to as "homocide")? Then I'd say things are good, and a much bigger threat to deal with would be substance abuse in the "community". But for comparison, I note there have been Christians killed this very year here in the USA due to their religion.
Associated Press writer Brett Zongker reported on the march, pointing out...
The weekend also included political training at several D.C. universities for young activists to learn how to build support and lobby lawmakers at home.
This is why we can't let up. We can't let a tiny minority dictate the terms of our lives. We must continue to demonstrate what is and is not marriage, why marriage is important, and that both mother and fathers are important.
And here is Katherine Skiba again, reporting on the march.
They are seeking "full federal equality" and singling out issues pertaining to marriage, adoption, military service and the workplace.
I really can’t see where any individual is a lacking federal equality, except when it comes to being able to be in the military and engage in homosexual sodomy without keeping it private. Do all of these people really want to serve in the military that badly?
A pair of young women wore T-shirts exhorting: "Legalize gay."
Where in the union is being gay illegal?
A subsequent article by her added more coverage.
Later, at the Capitol rally, Rosendahl told the crowd that 36 states allow housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and 29 states permit firings on those grounds.
I tend to side with property owners and employers being able to run their businesses as they see fit. But I also tend to agree that as long as the government is going to get involved to protect renters and employees from discrimination based on certain behaviors (such as religious practice), then there is an argument to be made to protect them based on certain sexual behaviors. However, the Bill of Rights specifically mentions freedom of religion.
Depriving gays of the right to wed, Rosendahl said, deprives them of 1,100 rights.
Yet again: People have access to legal marriage regardless of their sexual orientation.
The rally drew impassioned speakers, including NAACP Chairman Julian Bond
Yes, because the NAACP has outlived its purpose when it comes to law and government, anyway - so now it is involved in unrelated issues. These groups never go away. When they get what they want, they simply move on to another problem, even if it isn’t really a problem. The best thing the NAACP can do for the "ACP" would be to encourage "C" men and women to marry before having children, then stay married at least until the children are raised. Encouraging them to engage in homosexual behavior and tear down heteronormative structure won't help with the "ACP".
Bond linked gay rights to civil rights.
"Black people of all people should not oppose equality, and that is what marriage is all about," he said.
We should all be treated equally by the government as human beings – regardless of circumstances of our birth or characteristics we are born with. However, the law often treats different behaviors differently. That is what law is all about.
"We have a lot of real and serious problems in this country, and same-sex marriage is not one of them."
And yet there you are rallying for it. So you are giving a speech about something you don't consider to be important?
You can read what I wrote about what has been going on in California over at The Opine Editorials.