Tennessee’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill now includes forced outing of gay students. This is, of course, brought to you by Stacey Campfield, who believes that heterosexual people can’t contract AIDS, which is a disease that originated with a gay man “screwing a monkey”.
Posts Tagged ‘gay rights’
Sullivan passes along a study on stress related hormone levels is homosexual and heterosexual people:
Perhaps most significant, though, was the secondary finding that they hadn’t even been searching for: In their study, lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals all tended to have lower stress levels and a smaller chance of depressive symptoms if they’d come out to friends and family than those who’d kept their sexual orientation a secret. “Coming out,” the authors write, “may no longer be a matter of popular debate, but of public health.”
His qualifier: “the study’s limited sample size means that these results can’t be interpreted as definitive, and further study is needed to confirm that they hold true on a widespread level.”
I suppose that makes sense, though I would add a second, though related qualifier. Closeted individuals, by definition, don’t tell people about their sexual orientation. That includes researchers. It is impossible to control for a variable like closeted homosexuality, as you have to rely on the subjects self identification. The heterosexual control group may or may not have contained closeted individuals. We can’t be sure, by definition. Given that the incidence of homosexuality in the general population is very low, a large enough sample size could correct for this, as the study’s author alluded to.
Just to recap, the Republicans will argue that the institution of marriage exists to protect society from the scourge of unplanned pregnancy, and thus is not applicable to gay people.
Protecting society from the scourge of unplanned pregnancy via sex ed, contraception, and family planning is unacceptable, naturally.
A Catholic bishop who was instrumental in creating California’s Proposition 8 says that same sex marriage is a natural impossibility and granting marriage rights for LGBT couples “is like legalizing male breastfeeding.”
That’s true! In the sense that it is, in no conceivable way whatsoever, true.
So there you have it. Gay people can’t get married because lactation, be it by a male or a (single) female.
I’m no stranger to shitty arguments, having made my share. But this, just, wow:
Marriage should be limited to unions of a man and a woman because they alone can “produce unplanned and unintended offspring,” opponents of gay marriage have told the Supreme Court. By contrast, when same-sex couples decide to have children, “substantial advance planning is required,” said Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for House Republicans.
This argument brought to you by the same people who almost shut down the Federal Government in order to kill planned parenthood. Not even Scalia, world’s biggest hack, could find that argument persuasive. (via)
Here’s something from Flowers that I missed last month, about Philadelphia’s ongoing fight to evict the Boy Scouts from city property for being anti-gay.
I’m not really familiar with the situation, so I won’t comment on the case itself, but I do want to mention something Flowers wrote.
And guess what? Some of these boys may very well be gay. But that’s irrelevant to their sense of self-worth when all that matters to a troubled boy is that he be fed, be respected, be taken seriously and be viewed as someone with potential.
Really, being gay is irrelevant to their sense of self-worth? An important part of who they are is irrelevant to their self worth?
But Flowers is right about one thing. Being respected, taken seriously, and viewed as someone with potential are all very important things. And yet Flowers seems to believe that being gay precludes one from those things. I argue that if you tell someone that they cannot be open about who they are, then you are very much not taking them seriously, you are certainly not respecting them, and by encouraging them to hide who they are you are undermining their potential.
Flowers spends much of her column extolling the virtues of scouting, heaping praise on the organization for allowing “these kids to leave the mean streets of the inner city and actually escape the shootings and the drugs and the premature deaths.” Unless of course these kids happen to be gay. Then its back to the streets.
At least they have “well-heeled activists and a sycophantic City Hall”, to stick up for them. Folks like Flowers certainly won’t.
Haven’t been blogging in a while because all anyone can talk about is the fiscal cliff and its just so stupid I can’t bring myself to do it. Luckily for you, I’ve managed to find a couple of non-cliff topics. Justice Scalia was promoting his book* in Princeton yesterday and was asked by a gay student why he sees equivalence between banning sodomy and banning murder. Scalia responds:
“I don’t think it’s necessary, but I think it’s effective,” Scalia said, adding that legislative bodies can ban what they believe to be immoral.
According to Article 1, section 8, congress can make laws which it considers “Neccesary and Proper” to carrying out its powers. But according to Scalia, this law is not neccesary! Scalia may also be interested to learn that, as a Supreme Court Justice, he is not a member of a legislative body! His job is not to ban what he believes to be immoral. I agree that a legislative body can ban what it considers to be immoral, but the job of the Supreme Court is not to point that out, its to make sure such bans are constitutional. The necessary and proper clause can be used here (a ban on murder is not based on moral grounds for example, but is necessary and proper to protect the public at large) but Scalia has admitted directly that a sodomy ban would fail this test. Scalia should articulate why he finds such a ban acceptable, rather than just making absurd arguments about bestiality and murder and then saying its a moral thing.
*Something about a Justice running around promoting a book seems a bit off to me. I get that it happens, it just seems odd. Maybe they should retire earlier, then write their books.
My opinion of Mitt Romney is not exactly a secret, and I kind of figured I really couldn’t like him any less.
I was so very wrong (all emphasis is mine):
It seemed like a minor adjustment. To comply with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in 2003, the state Registry of Vital Records and Statistics said it needed to revise its birth certificate forms for babies born to same-sex couples. The box for “father” would be relabeled “father or second parent,’’ reflecting the new law.
But to then-Governor Mitt Romney, who opposed child-rearing by gay couples, the proposal symbolized unacceptable changes in traditional family structures.
He rejected the Registry of Vital Records plan and insisted that his top legal staff individually review the circumstances of every birth to same-sex parents. Only after winning approval from Romney’s lawyers could hospital officials and town clerks across the state be permitted to cross out by hand the word “father’’ on individual birth certificates, and then write in “second parent,’’ in ink.
The practice of requiring high-level legal review continued for the rest of Romney’s term, despite a warning from a Department of Public Health lawyer who said such a system placed the children of same-sex parents at an unfair disadvantage.
The changes also would impair law enforcement and security efforts in a post-9/11 world, she said, and children with altered certificates would be likely to “encounter [difficulties] later in life . . . as they try to register for school, or apply for a passport or a driver’s license, or enlist in the military, or register to vote.”
Mitt Romney personally created a legal loophole designed to punish gay people and newborn babies because he doesn’t like gay people. Rather than complying with the spirit of the law, Mitt Romney set out a system to harass gays and their children from the moment of birth. Indeed, it seems like gay bashing is a bit of a life long pattern for Mitt. I previously wrote that one incident was not enough to label Mitt Romney a gay basher, but what he did as Governor was a direct attack on gays because he didn’t like them. It was not a physical assault, but it was malicious nonetheless.
Unbelievable. The next time this guy talks about family values, laugh in his face.