Debate the hottest political topics, poll the public opinion, post your own opinion polls and find out what others think!
You can even post your own public opinion polls using our poll builder and find out what others think on the issues that matter to you!
We want your opinion on whether the lesbian couple at Patrick Henry high school being named high school's first king and queen is acceptable or not!
It should come as a surprise to no one that the same demographic that so desperately needed Bristol Palin to win Dancing With The Stars is having fits over post-op transgendered contestant Chaz Bono. It's been mentioned that reality television is not my forte, to put it politely, but this is less about the nail-biting conclusion to a glitzy dance competition and more about how humanity will perform. Will a bigoted bias reign over the show's results and run Chaz out of the competition? Or could his performances actually be judged fairly by the small-minded masses? (Palin came in third, by the way.)"In the past, the ABC celebrity ballroom dancing show has included Lance Bass and Margaret Cho, who are both proud members of the LGBT community," SheWired.com reported. However Chaz is the show's first openly transgendered contestant. "Media critics are wondering what a public vote for Bono as a contestant on DWTS will reveal about people’s attitudes towards the LGBT community." If the web offers a fair sampling, the odds aren't in Chaz' favor-- yet.Reuters citing the following unfortunate examples from the Dancing With The Stars message boards:"HUGE HUGE fan of this show since season two and eagerly await each season to get my dancing/entertainment 'fix'!! But when I heard that Chaz Bono was going to be on, I was sick. Not that I have anything personally again her/him, I just don't want that lifestyle choice continually flaunted in the media esp ABC.""Chaz Bono How low can this show sink. Well you have certainly addressed the gay commuity [sic]. Guess this will not be a family show any longer!!!! Lost my family!""YOUR choice to bring Chaz Bono into the mix goes too far. I am not about to risk the potential for on screen dialogue about sex changes and gender confusion while my 7 and 9 year old are watching. If you want the 'anything goes' hippy culture, then soon that is all you will get. You've lost us. In case any of you are wondering ... no, we are NOT tolerant. We are not tolerant to allow any and all influences to come unfiltered into our home and especially to our children. This is truly a sad farewell.""Chaz will have to dance with one of the girls because she/he says she/he is a man but chromesomes [sic] say different no matter how many surgeries you have."A group supporting Chaz has already sprung up on Twitter, fighting against the backlash with a more positive message of tolerance and acceptance. Does Chaz Bono stand a chance against a conservative demographic persecuting his how he feels compelled to live his life? Or could a loyal web-following rallying behind him ensure that he gets the opportunity he deserves to represent trans folks in the mainstream media?
The Respect for Marriage Act is a bill introduced to Congress in March 2011 that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits marriage in the United States to heterosexual couples. Passage of the Respect for Marriage Act would allow the federal government to extend spousal benefits to same-sex couples. It would not force states where same-sex marriage is illegal to recognize marriages issued by other states. President Obama expressed his support for the repeal of DOMA on July 19, 2011.A repeal of DOMA would provide same-sex couples with the federal benefits they have long been denied. In their coverage of Congressional hearing that took place July 20, the Washington Times shares personal stories of spouses disadvantaged by DOMA. One man is not entitled to social security benefits after his partner passed away; two women pay over $700 more in taxes than they would have to could they file jointly, as a married couple. These stories illustrate that the repeal of DOMA is about more than an esoteric, theoretical battle for recognition; the law infringes on the rights of American citizens every day and its repeal will improve their lives.Those opposed to a repeal of DOMA cite evidence that children fare better in a two-parent home (a fact interpreted in this context as a male-and-female parent home) and claim that the majority of voters are opposed to recognizing same-sex marriage. After the hearing on July 20, it's unclear what the timeline of the Respect for Marriage Act will look like. The Democrats supporting the bill would like to move on it quickly, but Speaker of the House John Boehner has said he will not bring the legislation before the House for a vote. Even if the Respect for Marriage Act does not move forward soon, it will eventually. When that time comes, do you think Congress should pass the Respect for Marriage Act, thereby repealing DOMA?
On July 20, 2011, the Senate had their first hearings for possible legislation that would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Thomas Minnery of Focus on the Family provided testimony in the hearing in defense of DOMA. As part of his testimony, Minnery submits a written testimony citing a study about nuclear families. Senator Al Franken just happened to also read the study, and had a different understanding of the study. Minnery claims nuclear family requires opposite sex parents, but Franken argues nuclear family's only require a loving committed couple that are either the biological, adoptive, or legal parent of the children in the family. Listen to the Video and then consider: Senator Al Franken vs Thomas Minnery of Focus on the Family: Which definition of nuclear family was right?
With the victory for marriage equality in New York on June 25, now six states in the US and the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to get married. As other states deal with a possible transition to legalized same-sex marriage, let us consider the paths taken to instate this right and what path may be most efficient. In California, the issue has been debated in the courts. In New York, the law came about through the state legislature. In 2008, the California Supreme Court decided a case that found that the state constitution protects the right of same-sex couples. After that court case, voters passed the ballot measure Proposition 8 in November 2008, changing the California constitution to prohibit gay marriage. Numerous individuals filed lawsuits challenging the validity of Prop 8, and the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger made its way to the Federal District Court where Judge Walker found Prop 8 unconstitutional under the United States constitution on August 4, 2010. His decision would have legalized same-sex marriage in California, but the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit put a stay on Walker’s decision pending appeal of his ruling. In New York State, the State Assembly passed same-sex marriage legislation for the first time in 2007. It did not, however, make it through the State Senate. In 2009, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage passed the New York State Assembly again. The State Senate voted on that bill in December of 2009 and defeated it 24 to 38. In June of this year the Marriage Equality Act again passed the State Assembly, and when it reached the State Senate on June 24, the Republican-controlled Senate passed the bill 33 to 29.Although the fight for gay marriage in New York took longer than the current California efforts have taken, the passing of a bill may be less volatile in terms of potential overthrow, while the California court cases make go as far as the Supreme Court of the US before a decision is finalized. If the case does make it to the Supreme Court, though, the California case could have a nationwide impact. Which route do you think is more effective for cementing the right to marry, court cases or legislation?
Last year the "It Gets Better Project" launched a website in an attempt to show lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth that eventually their life will become easier. If the public was not aware of how hard the lives of these young people can be the unfortunate recent series of suicides made it very clear. The projects mission statement is as follows: "Many LGBT youth can't picture what their lives might be like as openly gay adults. They can't imagine a future for themselves. So let's show them what our lives are like, let's show them what the future may hold in store for them." ~It Gets Better ProjectThrough videos featuring celebrities, politicians and fellow Americans, adolescents can take the messages shared and feel comforted that although the present may really suck, the future holds so much more.
A man from Aloha, Oregon, was attacked in his home by his neighbor on August 16. The neighbor was upset about a decision that the victim, David Christensen, had made in his capacity as a member of a neighborhood organization, to trim a tree outside the neighbor's house. The attacker came into Christensen's house, threw him down and choked him, pinning him for ten minutes as he shouted gay slurs. Christensen's partner tried to help and caught the neighbor's verbal wrath as well.Although the attacker used gay slurs and admitted to police that he didn't like Christensen and his partner because of their sexual orientation, the police are not charging him for a hate crime. To qualify as a hate crime, the assault must be motivated by the victim's sexual orientation, and this attack seems to be because of a disagreement over a tree. However, a grand jury will review the case and determine if the perpetrator should be charged with a hate crime.Of the local news stories I've found reporting this attack, all but one identify the victim as "gay" in the title of the article. Had this story been about a straight neighborhood association member being attacked in his home by an unhappy neighbor, it may still have made the local news, but no one would have focused on the victim's sexuality. The FBI, who take on cases where individual's civil liberties have been violated, will be keeping an eye on the case as the local sheriff investigates. Christensen reports feeling extremely shaken and terrified to live in his home any longer. His attacker's use of gay slurs probably contributed to that feeling. Does the use of gay slurs make this crime a hate crime? Do you think the attack qualifies as a hate crime?
Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is sick of the disgusting associations with his name. No, not his political beliefs: the hilarious campaign launched by columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage in retaliation for Santorum's aggressive anti-gay messages. (If you're not in the know, a simple Google search reveals all here, but be forewarned that the material is not necessarily work safe despite its tactful description of a rather unpleasant sexual matter.)On Tuesday, the pouty Republican presidential hopeful publicly scolded Google while asserting not only that they could remove the unsavory search result but may be more inclined to do so if he were a left-leaning sort. Geez.According to thirdage.com, Santorum told Politico in an interview, “I suspect if something was up there like that about Joe Biden, they'd get rid of it. If you're a responsible business, you don't let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country. To have a business allow that type of filth to be purveyed through their website or through their system is something that they say they can't handle, but I suspect that's not true.”In response, a Google spokesman told CNN in an email, “Google's search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Web. Users who want content removed from the Internet should contact the webmaster of the page directly. Once the webmaster takes the page down from the Web, it will be removed from Google's search results through our usual crawling process. We do not remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content and violations of our webmaster guidelines.”Is Google simply abiding by its own standards and regulations? Or is the search engine singling out the salty former Senator for unfair treatment?
The Pentagon's oft-debated "don't ask, don't tell" policy preventing gay and lesbian soldiers from serving openly in the U.S. military officially ended at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday morning after 17 years. Pentagon press secretary George Little said Monday that the military is prepared for the end of the policy, which took effect in 1993 under President Bill Clinton, and nationwide celebration of the repeal is anticipated. Almost 15,000 troops were discharged under DADT.The Huffington Post spoke with 43 year-old Army lieutenant colonel Todd Burton, stationed in Arlington, Va., on Monday night, "While he described the repeal as "empowering" and "freeing," he also acknowledged that the freedom will "take some getting used to."Many soldiers say gay servicemen and women were always welcome amongst their peers and don't anticipate much change. "In interviews with students at the U.S. Naval Academy, the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Air Force Academy," according to The Wall Street Journal, "midshipmen and cadets say the issue of homosexuality is not a flashpoint of controversy for many members of their generation. Academy students who were not yet in their teens when the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks happened and have grown up in a nation at war say competence and character are what matter to them, not sexual orientation."However, despite lifting the threat of discharge for disclosing one's sexual identity, the federal government has not established specific policies regarding benefits."We'll celebrate for about ten minutes and get back to work," said Heather Cronk, managing director of GetEqual, an advocacy group that demands full legal and social equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals (LGBT)."You also still have issues around open service for transgender folks," she said.Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said that servicemembers will continue to have benefits for which they may designate beneficiaries regardless of their sexual orientation, including death gratuity, servicemembers' group life insurance and the thrift savingsplan.But other benefits, including health care and housing and transportation allowances, are restricted because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or other applicable statues, which legally define the terms "spouse" and "dependent.""In connection with DADT repeal, the department is exploring the possibility of extending other benefits - legally permitted - to same-sex partners," Lainez said. Is the Defense of Marriage Act going to continue to prevent true equality for LGBT troops? Or will the official strike of the DADT measure begin to allow for fair treatment of openly serving soldiers?
Illinois began allowing civil unions for same-sex couples on June 1, 2011. Same-sex couples, including a couple close to my heart, took advantage and celebrated the small step toward justice and inclusion. Civil unions, not gay marriage, are now legal in Illinois, but the state will recognize same-sex marriages from other states.One organization, Catholic Charities, will not join the celebration of increased gay rights in Illinois. According to WGN, "The charities asked the court to declare that they are legally justified to preserve their current policy of exclusively granting licenses to married couples and single, non-cohabiting individuals and referring civil union couples to other child welfare agencies. " The Family Research Council reports, "The Roman Catholic diocese in Rockford has announced that it will close its doors on the church's adoption program before subjecting children to placement in homosexual homes." Previous to legal civil unions in Illinois, a Catholic Charities spokesperson had explained, "It is the religious practice of Catholic Charities not to place children with unmarried, cohabiting couples, whether same sex or opposite sex.” Now that same-sex couples have a chance at legally recognized union, and the organization can't hide behind "we wouldn't let straight people do this either!", the same person could not be reached for comment. So keeping children from potentially safe, healthy homes based on the sexuality (or marital status) of the adults in the home because of religious beliefs may seem silly, illogical, or wrong (or perfectly appropriate, what do I know), but perhaps the religious organization has a right to make that decision. Not so, according to Huffington Post commentary that delineates the financial problem with Catholic Charity's argument. They receive taxpayer money, yet they want to employ illegal discriminatory practices. The HuffPo blogger writes, "It's not right nor fair to the child -- who is denied a chance at a good home simply because of religious doctrine. And it's certainly not right or fair to the gay couples -- who are hardworking taxpayers and should be treated with the dignity and respect which comes with that title." Still, one could argue that freedom of religion dictates the right of a church to abide by their teachings. What do you think? Is Catholic Charities out of line for preferring to shut down their adoption center rather than recognize same-sex couples as potential parents?
Yesterday the North Carolina State Senate determined that an amendment to the State Constitution banning same-sex marriage will be on the ballot in May 2012. MSNBC reports, "North Carolina is the only state in the Southeast without such a prohibition in its constitution. State law already defines marriage as between a man and a woman," but a change to the constitution would create a stronger barrier against the legalization of gay marriage.Supporters of the amendment feel it would provide better protection against legally wed same-sex couples seeking to maintain their status if they came to North Carolina from one of the six states or Washington DC where gay marriage is allowed. The Republican senator Jim Forrester who has championed this legislation for years said, "This wasn't a slap in the face at them. It was just something I thought we needed to do to continue to have a strong family structure here in North Carolina."Opponents of the amendment find it unnecessary, worry that it will hurt the state's economy by excluding gay couples and their allies, and think it draws on an unfortunate history of racism, segregation and discrimination. A Democratic Representative, Susan Fisher, reminded her colleagues of a recent session where they issued an apology to African-American citizens for injustices. "What I think is about to happen here is another instance where in the not-too-distant future we will be apologizing again for unfair and harmful discriminatory practices."Regardless of how the representatives and legislatures feel about the issue, they all agree that it's now up to the citizen to decide for themselves, though the vote in May. Do you think North Carolina voters should approve or deny the measure?
After the passage of Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage in California, in 2008, organizers spoke of creating a ballot measure in 2010 that would allow people to vote for legalization of same-sex marriage. In 2010 they decided the timing wasn't right and to wait longer and gather more support. Now they're looking at 2012 for a possible ballot measure. Earlier this year, a federal judge found Prop 8 unconstitutional, which technically makes gay marriage in the state legal, but the Ninth Circuit Court issued a stay on gay marriage pending a review of the decision. Prop 8's defenders may appeal the decision. With Proposition 8 tied up in the courts, the group that orchestrated the No on Prop 8 campaign, Equality California, has begin a series of town hall meetings to determine if they will create a ballot measure that would take the focus away from Prop 8's slow move through through the courts and bring in a new possibility for recognized same-sex marriage.A ballot measure cannot be taken on lightly. From the previously linked SF Examiner article: "Voter support isn’t the only consideration. Money, time and effort must be considered, said Marriage Equality USA spokeswoman Molly McKay... The Prop. 8 campaign cost both sides of the debate more than $40 million." Still, it may be worth the cost if organizers believe a ballot measure could make a difference.
Bert and Ernie, the odd-couple roommates who have charmed kids and their parents with their quirky friendship since they appeared in the Sesame Street pilot episode in 1969, find their sexuality being questions on a larger scale than ever before. This month, a Chicago resident created a petition on Change.org urging the Sesame Street producers to "Let Bert and Ernie Get Married." The petition has nearly 10,000 votes and has sparked a heated conversation.The petition argues that with the current rash of bullying and hopelessness among gay youth, a married gay couple on a children's TV show would send a much-needed message of tolerance. "Children and parents need to learn that acceptance of humankind, even puppets, would indeed plant a seed of peace that will reverberate throughout the universe. We are not asking that Sesame Street depict anything crude or disrespectful; this is NOT about any other issue other than education," the petitioner writes.Some objectors feel that nuptials between the puppets would introduce concepts too mature for the show's young audience. In response, the blog Talk About Equality points out that kids are exposed to married couples all the time, including the hetero couple Gordon and Susan on Sesame Street, without thinking about the couples' sex lives. Most of the backlash cites religious or moral objections to the potential pairing, or is just poorly disguised (and poorly articulated) bigotry -- an argument that kids shouldn't be exposed to gay couples. Comments like these can be found all over the initial petition and those that have cropped up to protest the initial petition. More even-keel resistance comes in the form of "They're puppets; puppets are not the outlet for this kind of activism."Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization that produces the show, stated in response to the petition that Bert and Ernie "remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation." They explain, and many fans of the show agree, that "Bert and Ernie are best friends. They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves," not to send a message about sexual orientation. Many fans have pointed to this as their reason they oppose the proposal, and suggested that introducing new characters that are gay-identified from the start may be a better option.The Washington Post ran a column that dismisses the petition on the basis that the characters are ill suited for this kind of activism. "Does this really need to happen?" the article asks. "You know you’re probably not enhancing anyone’s acceptance of anything or moving the debate anywhere insightful when someone gets to sensibly point out that “neither of them, as far as we know, even have genitalia, because they are puppets, for crying out loud!” Even the feminist and queer-friendly site Jezebel, where you might expect to find support for such a proposal, finds the idea ridiculous. "Okay, sure, we understand where the petition is coming from... [But] why are we looking at two felt puppets as sexual beings?" This article, too, concludes with a statement about how we should focus our energies on getting real people married.What do you think? Should Bert and Ernie get married?
Representative John Lewis (D - GA) has been an opponent of DOMA since the day it was introduced. Here is the transcript from his testimony before Congress on July 11, 1996, when DOMA was first introduced:Let me say to the gentleman that when I was growing up in the south during the 1940s and the 1950s, the great majority of the people in that region believed that black people should not be able to enter places of public accommodation, and they felt that black people should not be able to register to vote, and many people felt that was right but that was wrong. I think as politicians, as elected officials, we should not only follow but we must lead, lead our districts, not put our fingers into the wind to see which way the air is blowing but be leaders.Mr. Chairman, this is a mean bill. It is cruel. This bill seeks to divide our nation, turn Americans against Americans, sew the seeds of fear, hatred and intolerance. Let us remember the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths self-evident that all people are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.This bill is a slap in the face of the Declaration of Independence. It denies gay men and women the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Marriage is a basic human right. You cannot tell people they cannot fall in love. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used to say when people talked about interracial marriage and I quote, `Races do not fall in love and get married. Individuals fall in love and get married.'Why do you not want your fellow men and women, your fellow Americans to be happy? Why do you attack them? Why do you want to destroy the love they hold in their hearts? Why do you want to crush their hopes, their dreams, their longings, their aspirations?We are talking about human beings, people like you, people who want to get married, buy a house, and spend their lives with the one they love. They have done no wrong.I will not turn my back on another American. I will not oppress my fellow human being. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation.Mr. Chairman, I have known racism. I have known bigotry. This bill stinks of the same fear, hatred and intolerance. It should not be called the Defense of Marriage Act. It should be called the defense of mean-spirited bigots act.I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, to have the courage to do what is right. This bill appeals to our worst fears and emotions. It encourages hatred of our fellow Americans for political advantage. Every word, every purpose, every message is wrong. It is not the right thing to do, to divide Americans.We are moving toward the 21st century. Let us come together and create one nation, one people, one family, one house, the American house, the American family, the American nation.If you listen to his testimony from July 20, 2011, you can hear the same message he said back then. The Defense of Marriage Act is a stain on our democracy, and it is time to change it and give equality to all human beings. In case you don't know, this is what it does:DOMA enshrines discrimination into US law by only recognizing marriage between a man and a woman;DOMA allows states that don’t have marriage equality in their laws, the right to not have to recognize same sex marriages from other states; similar to former law that allowed states to not recognize interracial marriages during the Civil Rights fight in AmericaDOMA denies over 1,000 legal rights and privileges to same sex couples enjoyed by straight couplesDo you support Congress Repealing DOMA and passing the Respect for Marriage Act?
Let me say to the gentleman that when I was growing up in the south during the 1940s and the 1950s, the great majority of the people in that region believed that black people should not be able to enter places of public accommodation, and they felt that black people should not be able to register to vote, and many people felt that was right but that was wrong. I think as politicians, as elected officials, we should not only follow but we must lead, lead our districts, not put our fingers into the wind to see which way the air is blowing but be leaders.Mr. Chairman, this is a mean bill. It is cruel. This bill seeks to divide our nation, turn Americans against Americans, sew the seeds of fear, hatred and intolerance. Let us remember the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths self-evident that all people are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.This bill is a slap in the face of the Declaration of Independence. It denies gay men and women the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Marriage is a basic human right. You cannot tell people they cannot fall in love. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used to say when people talked about interracial marriage and I quote, `Races do not fall in love and get married. Individuals fall in love and get married.'Why do you not want your fellow men and women, your fellow Americans to be happy? Why do you attack them? Why do you want to destroy the love they hold in their hearts? Why do you want to crush their hopes, their dreams, their longings, their aspirations?We are talking about human beings, people like you, people who want to get married, buy a house, and spend their lives with the one they love. They have done no wrong.I will not turn my back on another American. I will not oppress my fellow human being. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation.Mr. Chairman, I have known racism. I have known bigotry. This bill stinks of the same fear, hatred and intolerance. It should not be called the Defense of Marriage Act. It should be called the defense of mean-spirited bigots act.I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, to have the courage to do what is right. This bill appeals to our worst fears and emotions. It encourages hatred of our fellow Americans for political advantage. Every word, every purpose, every message is wrong. It is not the right thing to do, to divide Americans.We are moving toward the 21st century. Let us come together and create one nation, one people, one family, one house, the American house, the American family, the American nation.
By a slim margin of 33-29, the Marriage Equality Act passed the New York State Senate on June 24, 2011, just days before the anniversary of the landmark Stonewall riots in Greenwhich Village and on the cusp of New York City's annual Gay Pride celebration. Governor Cuomo signed the same-sex marriage measure immediately and the law will go into effect thirty days from now, on July 24. The bill is being heralded as a landmark decision with a potentially far-reaching impact on the U.S.'s on-going debate over gay civil rights."....the number of Americans in same-sex marriage states more than doubles," NPR reports. "New York's population of 19 million surpasses the combined total of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa, plus Washington, D.C., where same-sex marriages are legal.""The outcome — a product of intensive lobbying by the new Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo — will have nationwide repercussions. Activists hope the New York vote will help convince judges and politicians across the country, including a hesitant President Obama, that support of same-sex marriage is now a mainstream viewpoint and a winning political stance." "New York sends the message that marriage equality across the country is a question of "when," not "if." - Fred Sainz, vice president of the Human Rights CampaignDespite each state's individual victories, the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" still maintains that a state may chose whether or not to honor same-sex marriages performed in other states, in addition to upholding the religious importance placed on the gender of individuals wishing to enter into a government contract of marriage. Currently, same-sex couples cannot get married in 44 states and all but 14 of those have passed constitutional amendments specifically banning gay marriage.White House spokesman Shin Inouye said of Obama's stance on the subject, "The President has long believed that gay and lesbian couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples." "That's why he has called for repeal of the so-called 'Defense of Marriage Act' and determined that his Administration would no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the courts. The states should determine for themselves how best to uphold the rights of their own citizens. The process in New York worked just as it should."Does New York's approval of same-sex marriages spell a victory for a more progressive and less bigoted government? Or should Christian ideals of marriage between only one man and one woman prevail? (Cast your vote regarding the 'Defense of Marriage Act' here.)Photographer and activist Kay Lahusen seen calling for equality in the days after the Stonewall riots, nearly forty-two years ago. Photo from Wikipedia.
"California federal judge James Ware rejected the claim that former judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from hearing the Prop. 8 case because Walker is in a same-sex relationship," according to The Wall Street Journal blog. " Lawyers who represented the backers of Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California,, contended that Walker should have disclosed he was in a long-term relationship with a gay partner as the judge arguably stood to personally benefit from a ruling overturning Prop. 8." Should the sexual orientation of any judge, the sex of their partner, or their intent to marry ever have to be divulged in proceedings over gay marriage? Wouldn't that, then, set a precedent that any judge's potential lifestyle choices related to the theme of a particular case could be called into question? A black judge would have to recuse himself from cases regarding African Americans, divorced white male judges ought not rule in favor of other divorced white males, female judges would be banned from ruling on abortion cases. Or only female judges of child-bearing age-- one can assume we'd have to ask if she has children, how many, under what circumstances and if she is now menopausal and thereby no longer concerned with her own stake in her ruling. After all, if the gender of a judge's partner and status of one's romantic relationship are crucial information, where does it end?
The legalization of same-sex marriage in New York brings the number of states that allow same-sex marriage to six and doubles the number of Americans living in a state with legal gay marriage. Even more than those six recognize marriages issued by other states. For example, Illinois recently legalized civil unions, and while Illinois residents cannot get gay married, the state does recognize same-sex marriages from, say, New York. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) keeps the federal government from recognizing state-approved same-sex marriages. Because of DOMA, if one spouse works for the federal government she cannot share her benefits with her partner even if they are legally married in the state where they live . President Obama has stopped defending DOMA in court but the executive branch still must enforce the law and therefore cannot recognize same-sex marriages allowed by individual states. Do you think DOMA is destined to die out, or will the federal law overcome laws of the handful of states that have legalized gay marriage?
Actress Leisha Hailey and her girlfriend Camila Grey were removed from a Southwest Airlines flight earlier this week after an incident that the L-Word star claims started with an innocent kiss and the airline claims was due to outbursts after the couple was gently reminded to maintain a family-friendly environment. Is Hailey's anger at being asked to tone down a girl-on-girl peck justified? Should affection between any couple, regardless of sex, be saved for private spaces, or is Southwest simply skirting the issue of blatant homophobia?The couple expressed their outrage though a statement issued via their electro-pop band, Uh Huh Her [pictured left], which was embarking on a twenty-one city nationwide tour to increase breast cancer awareness. According to the Huffington Post, the statement reads, "In no way were our actions on Southwest Airlines excessive, inappropriate or vulgar," it read. "We want to make it clear we were not making out or creating any kind of spectacle of ourselves, it was one, modest kiss. We are responsible adult women who walk through the world with dignity."Southwest shot back that the ladies were removed for foul language that resulted from the reprimand, not for the actual affection, "Additional reports from our Employees and Customers onboard flight 2274 during a stop in El Paso on Sunday now confirm profane language was being used loudly by two passengers," the statement read. "At least one family who was offended by the loud profanity moved to another area of the cabin. Although we have reports of what Customers characterize as an excessive public display of affection, ultimately their aggressive reaction led to their removal from the aircraft." The statement continued, "We do not tolerate discrimination against anyone for any reason. In this situation, their removal was directly and solely related to the escalated conversation that developed onboard the aircraft."Leisha Hailey, however, maintains her innocence against Southwest's claims: "We take full responsibility for getting verbally upset with the flight attendant after being told it was a 'family airline.' We were never told the reason the flight attendant approached us, we were only scolded that we 'needed to be aware that Southwest Airlines was a family oriented airline.' No matter how quietly homophobia is whispered, it doesn’t make it any less loud."Is a kiss just a kiss or is was something more?
Larry King
March Madness
Natasha Fame Leslie
Ryan Seacrest
Sanu Dellafiore
John Armstrong
Fred Hanna
Georgia Hester
