Showing posts with label Gay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay. Show all posts
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Sunday, December 26, 2010
German Parliamentary leader says gays have no rights to children
Image via WikipediaVolker Kauder, the parliamentary leader of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats, said on Monday that homosexual couples had no right to have children.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Obama signals his opposition to gay marriage 'evolving'
Image via WikipediaPRESIDENT: "With respect to the issue of whether gays and lesbians should be able to get married, I’ve spoken about this recently. As I’ve said, my feelings about this are constantly evolving. I struggle with this. I have friends, I have people who work for me, who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions. And they are extraordinary people, and this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about.
At this point, what I’ve said is, is that my baseline is a strong civil union that provides them the protections and the legal rights that married couples have. And I think -- and I think that’s the right thing to do. But I recognize that from their perspective it is not enough, and I think is something that we’re going to continue to debate and I personally am going to continue to wrestle with going forward."Hawaii-bound, Obama signals his opposition to gay marriage 'evolving' | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Emboldened by Elections, Christian Right Lashing Out at Gay Community in Biblical Proportions | God Discussion
Forget about the economy. Now that the mid-term elections are over, the religious right and the conservative majorities are eying up what's easiest to "fix" … tapping into religious sentiment to make sure that gays and lesbians are not treated equally under the law.
Reversing Gay Marriage Rights.
A group called "Cornerstone Action" thinks that it has a good chance of overturning marriage equality in New Hampshire. The group's executive director, Kevin Smith, told the American Family Association's news service,
They may not pull off, but there are rumblings in Iowa about banning same sex marriage, now that three Supreme Court justices were not retained. From Iowa Family Policy Center READ MORE AT :Emboldened by Elections, Christian Right Lashing Out at Gay Community in Biblical Proportions | God Discussion"I think there's no doubt we'll get majority votes in both chambers to pass it," Smith suggests. "We expect the governor will veto any repeal of same-sex marriage. But then it comes down to getting enough of the majority to override it, and I think there is a pretty good chance that we'll be able to override his veto."
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Supreme Court Denies Gay Marriage in NJ
Image via WikipediaNew Jersey Supreme Court will not hear six same-sex couple's cases:
SOURCE: Atlantic City Buzz, The Examiner
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Vanderpool will not seek favors from gay groups
Image via WikipediaWhen gay people run for office, they often turn to gay groups for a little support, including the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. Out and proud Democrat Matthew Vanderpool, who’s running for a Kentucky State House Seat, decided not to procure favors from his lavender pals.
Vanderpool came forward this week to say that he’s not willing to compromise himself for the Victory Fund’s support. Victory Fund executive director Denis Dison, however, points out that the Fund only endorses candidates who ask or apply. Vanderpool was never approached by them, nor did he ever approach them.
Vanderpool’s either a man of principle or a shrewd politician. Regardless, he’s buying into anti-gay politics, and it may be just the right move. Or maybe it’s all wrong.
According to Vanderpool, he doesn’t want to define his campaign by his sexuality, or anyone else’s agenda. “The price attached to accepted money from the Victory Fund were incompatible with my beliefs,” he insisted in a press release “I am gay, but that does not define my entire life or the things I stand for, which are explained in detail on my website. I have no ‘gay agenda.’” Though he supports the Victory Fund’s key tenets, including pro-choice poltiics, Vanderpool refuses to be beholden to any ideological groups.
Dison views Vanderpool’s announcement with some surprise, telling journo Matt Comer, “It is an interesting tactic to contact the press and say you will not accept an endorsement from an organization from which you’ve not applied for an endorsement.” He went on to say, “We endorse people in any party or no party. It is not a matter of asking someone to run on issues that are a part of our endorsement criteria.” Vanderpool, however, isn’t concerned with criteria, agendas or favors. He’s clearly interested in winning.
We’re trying to get them to understand, yes I am a gay candidate and I do support gays but being gay does not define me,” he told Comer. “Excuse me for putting it this way, but if I prance around my district saying ‘gay this’ or ‘gay that,’ it will destroy me. The guy I’m running against is so conservative and anti-gay he will make it look like that is the only reason I’m running.” In Vanderpool’s eyes, accepting, asking for or even being associated with a Victory Fund endorsement would be a political albatross.
Though he may love gay people, Vanderpool’s distancing himself on purpose, clearly aware his incumbent Republican opponent, Stan Lee, could use homosexuality as a wedge issue. Vanderpool views homo harping as “political suicide.” That may be the case.
By distancing himself from the so-called “gay agenda,” Vanderpool has ceded power to Lee, who now makes the agenda. Rather than facing discrimination and homophobia head on, in political terms, Vanderpool wants to make the race about the economy, crime and other universal issues. So, do we judge him. That depends on how you define “political responsibility.” Is it gay?
I don’t have the answers here. Voters, and observers such as myself, need to take time to consider what is more important: a gay politician whose identity and related political rhetoric ends up trumping the race, or someone who, though gay, focusses on winning an election so that he or she can fight the gay fight while in office. Both are equally important, but which is more effective?
Where you stand on this issue notwithstanding, I hope all can agree that Vanderpool has bought into, and perhaps even perpetuated, the anti-gay agenda. Whether or not this tactic comes out on top remains to be seen.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Manhattan Borough President will wed in gay-friendly Conn.
Image via Wikipedia
NEW YORK (AP) - One New York City official is making a statement on gay marriage by refusing to get married in his home state.
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer says he and fiancee Elyse Buxbaum have decided to get married in Connecticut, rather than New York, because Connecticut allows same-sex unions and New York does not.
Stringer tells The New York Times the couple made the decision out of solidarity with gay friends who can't get married in their home state either.
New York's State Senate killed a bill seven months ago that would have allowed same-sex marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)